The Square and the Tower: Networks and Power, from the Freemasons to Facebook
- Downloads：5560
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-04-30 06:54:49
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Niall Ferguson
- ISBN：0735222932
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
The instant New York Times bestseller。
A brilliant recasting of the turning points in world history， including the one we're living through， as a collision between old power hierarchies and new social networks。
"Captivating and compelling。" --The New York Times
Niall Ferguson has again written a brilliant book。。。In 400 pages you will have restocked your mind。 Do it。 --The Wall Street Journal
"The Square and the Tower， in addition to being provocative history， may prove to be a bellwether work of the Internet Age。" -- Christian Science Monitor
Most history is hierarchical: it's about emperors， presidents， prime ministers and field marshals。 It's about states， armies and corporations。 It's about orders from on high。 Even history from below is often about trade unions and workers' parties。 But what if that's simply because hierarchical institutions create the archives that historians rely on？ What if we are missing the informal， less well documented social networks that are the true sources of power and drivers of change？
The 21st century has been hailed as the Age of Networks。 However， in The Square and the Tower， Niall Ferguson argues that networks have always been with us， from the structure of the brain to the food chain， from the family tree to freemasonry。 Throughout history， hierarchies housed in high towers have claimed to rule， but often real power has resided in the networks in the town square below。 For it is networks that tend to innovate。 And it is through networks that revolutionary ideas can contagiously spread。 Just because conspiracy theorists like to fantasize about such networks doesn't mean they are not real。
From the cults of ancient Rome to the dynasties of the Renaissance， from the founding fathers to Facebook， The Square and the Tower tells the story of the rise， fall and rise of networks， and shows how network theory--concepts such as clustering， degrees of separation， weak ties， contagions and phase transitions--can transform our understanding of both the past and the present。
Just as The Ascent of Money put Wall Street into historical perspective， so The Square and the Tower does the same for Silicon Valley。 And it offers a bold prediction about which hierarchies will withstand this latest wave of network disruption--and which will be toppled。
A brilliant recasting of the turning points in world history， including the one we're living through， as a collision between old power hierarchies and new social networks。
"Captivating and compelling。" --The New York Times
Niall Ferguson has again written a brilliant book。。。In 400 pages you will have restocked your mind。 Do it。 --The Wall Street Journal
"The Square and the Tower， in addition to being provocative history， may prove to be a bellwether work of the Internet Age。" -- Christian Science Monitor
Most history is hierarchical: it's about emperors， presidents， prime ministers and field marshals。 It's about states， armies and corporations。 It's about orders from on high。 Even history from below is often about trade unions and workers' parties。 But what if that's simply because hierarchical institutions create the archives that historians rely on？ What if we are missing the informal， less well documented social networks that are the true sources of power and drivers of change？
The 21st century has been hailed as the Age of Networks。 However， in The Square and the Tower， Niall Ferguson argues that networks have always been with us， from the structure of the brain to the food chain， from the family tree to freemasonry。 Throughout history， hierarchies housed in high towers have claimed to rule， but often real power has resided in the networks in the town square below。 For it is networks that tend to innovate。 And it is through networks that revolutionary ideas can contagiously spread。 Just because conspiracy theorists like to fantasize about such networks doesn't mean they are not real。
From the cults of ancient Rome to the dynasties of the Renaissance， from the founding fathers to Facebook， The Square and the Tower tells the story of the rise， fall and rise of networks， and shows how network theory--concepts such as clustering， degrees of separation， weak ties， contagions and phase transitions--can transform our understanding of both the past and the present。
Just as The Ascent of Money put Wall Street into historical perspective， so The Square and the Tower does the same for Silicon Valley。 And it offers a bold prediction about which hierarchies will withstand this latest wave of network disruption--and which will be toppled。
Reviews
Diogo Jesus
，
This book could have been an article。 Although I enjoy Ferguson's history writting this one proved a disappointment。+ well researched and written as always mixing culture and hard History+ relevant to fuel debate + presents a different way to look at history which was made not only by warriors， kings and generals leading strict structures （the tower） but also formal and informal connections， organizations， guilds， correspondence and friendship/rivalries- a lot of facts （thank you interns who wor This book could have been an article。 Although I enjoy Ferguson's history writting this one proved a disappointment。+ well researched and written as always mixing culture and hard History+ relevant to fuel debate + presents a different way to look at history which was made not only by warriors， kings and generals leading strict structures （the tower） but also formal and informal connections， organizations， guilds， correspondence and friendship/rivalries- a lot of facts （thank you interns who work with Mr。 Ferguson） but without a clear objective- a steady repetition of the same idea 。。。more
Darryl Burling
，
I always appreciate Ferguson’s writing。 He has a broad and deep understanding of history generally and thinks deeply about his area of focus。 This book is no exception， and if you’re looking for a rich read that points to some of the social struggles we’re having today， this is worthy of your attention。 In short， this book is about the different types of networks that have existed throughout history and the impact they have made on civilization and society when they arrive。 At points it seems to I always appreciate Ferguson’s writing。 He has a broad and deep understanding of history generally and thinks deeply about his area of focus。 This book is no exception， and if you’re looking for a rich read that points to some of the social struggles we’re having today， this is worthy of your attention。 In short， this book is about the different types of networks that have existed throughout history and the impact they have made on civilization and society when they arrive。 At points it seems to meander a bit， but the richness of the content keeps you engaged。 The sections on recent history are perhaps the best and most helpful in this book。 。。。more
Nate
，
interesting about networks but gets redundant。
Ben Wiener
，
Didn’t “get” the alleged thesis。
Travis
，
Ferguson tries to make a point about the impact of social networks on the flow of history and largely fails due to far too many examples coupled with little to no linkage back to a central theorem other than 'social networks and specialized social networks called hierarchies， they existed through time。' Many of his examples are meandering and/or self contradictory， and the scope of the book is far too wide。 I kept thinking we were going somewhere with all these examples; we never did。 The closes Ferguson tries to make a point about the impact of social networks on the flow of history and largely fails due to far too many examples coupled with little to no linkage back to a central theorem other than 'social networks and specialized social networks called hierarchies， they existed through time。' Many of his examples are meandering and/or self contradictory， and the scope of the book is far too wide。 I kept thinking we were going somewhere with all these examples; we never did。 The closest Ferguson gets to a point is at the end， where he （I think） attempts to show that networks are actually anarchic/dangerous and hierarchies are the most hopeful model we have for stability and prospering。 This view comes across as thoroughly confused in light of past examples he himself gives of hierarchies: examples which include Stalin and Hitler。Ferguson is smart enough to know history and to recognize graph theory as a force mapped onto it。 He apparently isn't smart enough to draw any concrete conclusions based on the theory that are correct or relevant。I think he should have limited his view to this:- social networks have effects- some people in a network have more effect than the rest because of their connections- loosely coupled networks encourage the spread of ideas and can foment a mass change in society （because power and information both become distributed）- tightly coupled hierarchies discourage change and concentrate power in the central nodes。 If you like the way things are， this is great。 If you don't， its awful。- Perhaps there exists a golden ratio of network connectivity that balances these tendencies。 We don't know。And that's basically it。 That's all we can say。 。。。more
Ondrej Urban
，
Niall Ferguson opens his narrative with the startling revelation that sometimes who one knows is just as important as who one is， and that the first aspect gets only rarely discussed in the history books， which he then goes ahead and writes a book about。 To a big degree this is correct， at least as far as my history non-education goes - this leader did this， that leader did that， and one only very rarely sees the case of A likes B more than C， hence even X occurred。 After a very very gentle intr Niall Ferguson opens his narrative with the startling revelation that sometimes who one knows is just as important as who one is， and that the first aspect gets only rarely discussed in the history books， which he then goes ahead and writes a book about。 To a big degree this is correct， at least as far as my history non-education goes - this leader did this， that leader did that， and one only very rarely sees the case of A likes B more than C， hence even X occurred。 After a very very gentle introduction to graph theory the reader is treated to a ton of examples of historical events occurring because of networking。 Henry Kissinger ultimately comes out on the top， a person who knew pretty much everyone that was anyone in times of Richard Nixon， an introverted president who benefited very much from having this level of socialite in his administration。For a person with background in maths a lot of the quantitative analysis presented in this book sounds quite basic - we figured out how to trace relationships between people in a graphic form， drew graphs and looked at who is connected a lot and who not so much。 Some criticism could be given to the occasional graphical presentation of these graphs that contain so many connections as to be almost completely untraceable。 The author does offer a discussion on them but why not simplify them in the first place， or highlight way more what it is that you want to show。 I might just be looking for a reason to be snob about something but this rubbed me the wrong way。The Square and the Tower， in its discussion how it's not always just the politicians in their towers that make the history but sometimes - often times - it's common folk in the square underneath， offers quite a fresh look at the world's history。 Sometimes it feels a bit rushed， sometimes a bit basic but in general a great new angle from which to consider things。 。。。more
Christopher
，
Ferguson is my favorite contemporary historian for a reason。 The chapters on 1939-2017 were particularly chilling。 A book growing more germane as the modern “administrative state” faces greater existential challenge。 Intriguing application of network theory to major historical shifts。
Deepanshu Aggarwal
，
Ferguson remains a historian who comes up with writing on unconventional topics。 He does it again with this book， that is about networks and hierarchies : relationships that have governed history and its trajectory。 In this book， he explores history as being a function of such relationships and hence， offers a new way of studying the same。
Scott Beddingfield
，
Fabulous walk through history from roughly 1700’s till now， describing through history-telling， how world events and society has been shaped by the dynamic shifting between networks （the square） and hierarchy （the tower）。 One of the best analyses I’ve read of the Thirty Years war， the Reformation， how we got to WW1， the impact of the printing press， telecommunications， the internet and their respective implications for society， governments and world power。 Fascinating detail and background on in Fabulous walk through history from roughly 1700’s till now， describing through history-telling， how world events and society has been shaped by the dynamic shifting between networks （the square） and hierarchy （the tower）。 One of the best analyses I’ve read of the Thirty Years war， the Reformation， how we got to WW1， the impact of the printing press， telecommunications， the internet and their respective implications for society， governments and world power。 Fascinating detail and background on innovators and history-makers。 Ferguson is largely non-polemic （which I greatly appreciated in this age of strident opinion-sharing）， leaving us with a dense， excellently sourced but riveting read。 。。。more
Yamin
，
I'm not sure what to make of this book viewing things via a network lens is interesting and there's a point there。 Yet it feels very repetitive going historical event by historical event for 400+ pages not saying anything except。。。 Look networks were at play here。 I'm not sure what to make of this book viewing things via a network lens is interesting and there's a point there。 Yet it feels very repetitive going historical event by historical event for 400+ pages not saying anything except。。。 Look networks were at play here。 。。。more
Philip Kern
，
This is an important book。 It's hard to evaluate the content because so much of it represents a fresh synthesis。 I'm sure I'll return to it to consider elements of it more critically。 In one sense it has little to do with my work-life， but in other ways it is full of implications for us。I read the first section， which sets out the methodology and rationale。 After about 60 pages， it wasn't engaging me the way other books by Ferguson have。 That is， it was readable， but I wasn't feeling desperate t This is an important book。 It's hard to evaluate the content because so much of it represents a fresh synthesis。 I'm sure I'll return to it to consider elements of it more critically。 In one sense it has little to do with my work-life， but in other ways it is full of implications for us。I read the first section， which sets out the methodology and rationale。 After about 60 pages， it wasn't engaging me the way other books by Ferguson have。 That is， it was readable， but I wasn't feeling desperate to pick it up again。 So Rather than give up on the book， I jumped ahead （to about p。 125）， landing on what was for me more familiar territory。 From then on it was absorbing。 So when I finished I went back and read much of it again from the beginning。 I would encourage the reader to persist even if the first part doesn't draw you in the way you'd hoped。 。。。more
Rachel
，
Stunning analysis of the power behind connectedness and its implications based on historical precedence。 My head is still spinning a bit。
Ганна Кузьо
，
Ледь дочитала。 Автор крутий， як на мене， оперує величезною кількістю інформації на тему історії， політики， економіки， фінансів。 Але читати його тут було важко。 Він дуже заглиблюється в розбір якихось окремих історій， які ледь-ледь з’єднує докупи。 Деякі розділи я так і не зрозуміла， до чого було вкладати в книгу。 Тому читати складно， а іноді й нудно。Тема цікава， дещо нова для мене。 Автор розкриває розвиток різноманітних мереж， адже вони зовсім не новий витвір людського суспільства。 Мережі існувал Ледь дочитала。 Автор крутий， як на мене， оперує величезною кількістю інформації на тему історії， політики， економіки， фінансів。 Але читати його тут було важко。 Він дуже заглиблюється в розбір якихось окремих історій， які ледь-ледь з’єднує докупи。 Деякі розділи я так і не зрозуміла， до чого було вкладати в книгу。 Тому читати складно， а іноді й нудно。Тема цікава， дещо нова для мене。 Автор розкриває розвиток різноманітних мереж， адже вони зовсім не новий витвір людського суспільства。 Мережі існували здавна， просто технології змінилися。 Колись були таємні ілюмінати， які вербували членів товариства особисто， революційні мережі поширювали листівки та усні повідомлення， реформаторство та поширення протестантизму стало успішним завдяки книгодрукуванню。 Автор частково протиставляє їх більш традиційним ієрархіям-державам。 І якщо спочатку здається， що мережі явно мають перевагу та позитивний вплив， адже вони є більш демократичними， то ті з них， які проіснували довго показали свою неконтрольованість й підводні камені。 “Революційна мережа може дуже швидко перетворитися на жорстоку ієрархічну систему。 Це гарно видно на прикладі червоної революції”Ви тут прочитаєте про реформаторство， про колонізацію， про розвиток міжнародної торгівлі， наполеонівські війни， відновлення монархій， фінансові оборудки Сороса， політику Гувера та 100500 історичних постатей， подій， рішень。 Це все плетиво заплутане， як самі мережі， про які розповідає Фергюсон。Не все так просто з мережами， словом。 А на завершення розділи про загрозливий розвиток соцмереж， кібератаки та кібервійни， від яких ми взагалі не захищені， бо традиційні ієрархії-держави не встигають адаптуватися до стрімкої еволюції мереж。 Похмура книга яка наче пророкує， що ці всі технології до добра не доведуть。 Не беруся судити про те， як Ніл Фергюсон трактує історію， але саме ця книга далеко не найкраща серед тих， які я читала。 Тут наче й багато всього цікавого， але воно якось недоладно з’єднане і серед того всього губиться думка автора。 Тож не раджу， на жаль。 。。。more
Josephine Blümel
，
Should be required to be read by everyone - interesting approach to explain the network theories and it’s problematic connection together with hierarchies。Even though it’s sometimes very dry reading， it’s worth to get to the end of this book to understand the message。Many of the world‘s current issues are being discussed but in the end the problem is in the core of society。 How do we structure ourselves and how do we want to be managed？
Jakub
，
i had to leave this one after being a third way in， as it felt like i was just throwing away my valuable reading time。 fergusson’s other book about the western civillization was engaging and exciting， but this one is rather bland and way too historical。 most of the time， the author just rambles on about names and places。 the conceptual context and ideas he tries to convey can be summarized much more concisely; he should learn how to do that from Harari。 the beginning about the idea of networks i i had to leave this one after being a third way in， as it felt like i was just throwing away my valuable reading time。 fergusson’s other book about the western civillization was engaging and exciting， but this one is rather bland and way too historical。 most of the time， the author just rambles on about names and places。 the conceptual context and ideas he tries to convey can be summarized much more concisely; he should learn how to do that from Harari。 the beginning about the idea of networks in our civillization was somewhat good until the chapters turn into boring history lessons。 。。。more
kurp
，
Kawał porządnej lektury z bibliografią i indeksem na setkę stron - to o czymś świadczy， nie？ :） Po niezmiernie intrygującym wstępie mam jednak wrażenie， że autor "nie dowozi"。 Pokazuje różne historyczne przykłady sieci i rzuca światło na nie-hierarchiczne formy współpracy ludzi i państw， ale oprócz przeglądu mnóstwa wątków， brak jakichś sensownych konkluzji czy nawet spójności narracji。 Najlepsze， co wynoszę， to przekonanie， że chciałbym pokopać trochę wokół analizy sieci i powiązań w analizie d Kawał porządnej lektury z bibliografią i indeksem na setkę stron - to o czymś świadczy， nie？ :） Po niezmiernie intrygującym wstępie mam jednak wrażenie， że autor "nie dowozi"。 Pokazuje różne historyczne przykłady sieci i rzuca światło na nie-hierarchiczne formy współpracy ludzi i państw， ale oprócz przeglądu mnóstwa wątków， brak jakichś sensownych konkluzji czy nawet spójności narracji。 Najlepsze， co wynoszę， to przekonanie， że chciałbym pokopać trochę wokół analizy sieci i powiązań w analizie danych - jak to zrobić i mierzyć， jakich narzędzi użyć， czego ciekawego można się z tego dowiedzieć - ale tego już muszę poszukać gdzieś indziej。 。。。more
Paul Ursuliak
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Вплив мереж на наше життя:Найважливіша відмінність полягала в тому， що «тоді як Google。。。 допомагав людям знаходити те， що вони вже вирішили купити， Facebook допоможе їм вирішити， що саме вони хочутьПознайомився з Автаркія — термін， що позначає внутрішню самозаспокоєність， задоволеність наявним станом， достатнім та незалежним。 Демокріт розглядав автаркію як самозаспокоєність духу і одночасно як властивість самої природи， зазначаючи， що «природі досить власних сил»。 Широке поширення поняття автар Вплив мереж на наше життя:Найважливіша відмінність полягала в тому， що «тоді як Google。。。 допомагав людям знаходити те， що вони вже вирішили купити， Facebook допоможе їм вирішити， що саме вони хочутьПознайомився з Автаркія — термін， що позначає внутрішню самозаспокоєність， задоволеність наявним станом， достатнім та незалежним。 Демокріт розглядав автаркію як самозаспокоєність духу і одночасно як властивість самої природи， зазначаючи， що «природі досить власних сил»。 Широке поширення поняття автаркія отримало у кініків та стоїків （мудрецю-стоїку «досить самого себе»）。 За Антисфеном， «доброчесності досить для блаженства»。 Стоїку Хрисиппу належить визначення:«tАвтаркія є стан， який задовольняється необхідним і який здатен приводити життя до належного»Держави， що дотримувалися автаркії втратили свою велич。 “Бідне населення у світі краще забезпечуть мобільною телефонією， ніж чистою водою， тож цей аргумент， мабуть， можна використати для того， щоб передати справу постачання чистої води в приватні руки， забравши це завдання у слабких і корумпованих урядів”Невже урядійсно настільки некомпетентній？ Чи просто це невірне порівняння складностей проблеми。 “Якщо ракета прилітає зі зворотною адресою， то комп’ютерний вірус зазвичай — без”Сучасні професіонали добряче можуть розколупати вірус і дізнатися його походження。 Хочете кібербезпеки？“У книжці «Сьоме чуття» Рамо висловлюється за зведення реальних і віртуальних «воріт»， щоб відгородитися від росіян， онлайн-злочинців， неповнолітніх мережевих вандалів та інших лиходіїв。 Однак сам Рамо цитує три правила комп’ютерної безпеки， розроблені криптографом АНБ Робертом Моррісом: «ПРАВИЛО ПЕРШЕ: не мати комп’ютера。 ПРАВИЛО ДРУГЕ: не вмикати його。 ПРАВИЛО ТРЕТЄ: не використовувати його»”“Кібероборона на десять років відстає від кібератак — здебільшого через нову версію неможливої трійки: «Системи можуть бути швидкі， відкриті чи захищені， але поєднуються лише дві з трьох умов”“Багато людей сьогодні помилково вважає， що інтернет кардинально змінив світ。 Утім， як зауважив Його Честь Ентоні Кеннеді у Верховному Суді США， де керує теперішня більшість， інтернет — це просто «сучасний громадський майдан»1409”Excerpt FromПлощі та вежі。 Соціальні зв’язки від масонів до фейсбукуНіл ФерґюсонThis material may be protected by copyright。 。。。more
Marie Olivier
，
This is a really interesting book that intersects network theory （oddly relevant， it came up in other aspects of my life once I started this book） with a really wide scope of history。 Although it’s well written I personally find these macro takes that span centuries disorienting。 Give me a setting， some characters， an event or see my brain struggle to grasp the relevancy/interest。
Artak Aleksanyan
，
Ֆերգյուսոնը միջդիսցիպլինար աշխատություն է ներկայացնում՝ երբեմն չափից դուրս մանրամասն， երբեմն՝ շատ հեռվից գալով， բայց ընդհանուր առմամբ ունի կուռ տրամաբանություն և շատ հետաքրքիր դիտարկումներ։
Victor Vilchiz
，
Not what i was expecting。
Tomas Nilsson
，
Don’t pick up this book if you expect strong punch lines at the end of each chapter。 If you are a history nerd you may not fall in love with all the chapter discussion。 If you want to experience another take another take on European and American history and are not easily offended then this book may be for you。 I don’t want to read this book again。 Next！
Deane Barker
，
The basic gist is that the world is made up of （1） hierarchies， like governments and corporations; and （2） networks， like terror networks， the Freemasons， and old college buddies。 We tend to think that power resides in hierarchical networks， but often the power is in the networks。Networks operate in and around the hierarchies， and are often distrusted by them。 Turns out The Illuminati was a real thing in 18th century Germany， and it was stamped out of existence because people in power hated the The basic gist is that the world is made up of （1） hierarchies， like governments and corporations; and （2） networks， like terror networks， the Freemasons， and old college buddies。 We tend to think that power resides in hierarchical networks， but often the power is in the networks。Networks operate in and around the hierarchies， and are often distrusted by them。 Turns out The Illuminati was a real thing in 18th century Germany， and it was stamped out of existence because people in power hated the idea of people "jumping the chain of command，" and creating power outside the established order。And such has been the history of the world。 History is written by the hierarchies， but the author is claiming that true power has been in networks。 He produces a lot of anecdotes and historical stories to prove his point。 There's a lot to follow， and I often found myself wondering how what I was reading was germane to the original point。 I skimmed some of it for this reason -- I just couldn't trace back the point。Still， the basic point is a good point， and something I never really considered before。 。。。more
James Perkins
，
This is a non-fiction book about how communication networks between human beings have evolved over human history by Scottish historian Niall Ferguson。 I'd read his previous work The Ascent of Money， which was a fascinating look at systems of exchange， so I thought this would take a similar tack。 Apart from debunking conspiracy theories about the Illuminati， the Masons and other secret societies and presenting a few interesting insights into the background of the two World Wars， it's not nearly a This is a non-fiction book about how communication networks between human beings have evolved over human history by Scottish historian Niall Ferguson。 I'd read his previous work The Ascent of Money， which was a fascinating look at systems of exchange， so I thought this would take a similar tack。 Apart from debunking conspiracy theories about the Illuminati， the Masons and other secret societies and presenting a few interesting insights into the background of the two World Wars， it's not nearly as engaging as the other work， and too often lapses into a dull history lesson instead of the analysis of networks that it purports to be。 For all his academic credentials， he also undermines his credibility when he discusses more recent political history over the last fifty years by openly allowing his own political views to contaminate his thesis， with a heavy reliance on unsubstantiated media reports and a critique of public figures as heroes or villains rather than sticking to objective facts。 Ferguson comes across well in interviews， and I will probably dip again into his extensive body of work， but here， his constant lecturing and opinionated diatribes spoil what could have been otherwise unusual and outstanding。 。。。more
Rachel
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 I read Ferguson’s The Ascent of Money during my review drought and retain absolutely no memory of it。 I’m also mostly unaware of his reputation as a public figure， although it struck me as ‘conservative’ - an impression only reinforced by the introduction of this book。 This part reminded me of nothing so much as a speech I once heard by a bigwig in the publishing industry， who in the course of his biography described how in his first day at a prestigious Oxford college in the 1970s he sat down n I read Ferguson’s The Ascent of Money during my review drought and retain absolutely no memory of it。 I’m also mostly unaware of his reputation as a public figure， although it struck me as ‘conservative’ - an impression only reinforced by the introduction of this book。 This part reminded me of nothing so much as a speech I once heard by a bigwig in the publishing industry， who in the course of his biography described how in his first day at a prestigious Oxford college in the 1970s he sat down next to an ‘American from Arkansas’， who introduced himself as Bill。 The identity of this American Rhodes Scholar is presumably obvious。 What never struck this man was that while ‘luck’ might have had a hand in his seat beside Bill Clinton， the layers upon layers of privilege that smoothed his road to that particular university had nothing at all to do with luck。I presume Ferguson had to write a pitch for this book， whence came the Siena-inspired ‘tower of hierarchy verus town square of network’ concept。 As others have noted， this analogy breaks down almost immediately。 Ferguson has no shame in changing it to fit circumstance （sometimes the hierarchy is weak！ Sometimes it’s strong！） or dispensing with it altogether to focus on small historical events that interest him independent of it。 Thus you get a deep-dive on the Cambridge Five that focuses heavily upon their homosexual tendencies。 For some reason Ferguson finds it surprising that in an all-male enclave of misogynists， some of them might turn to each other for sexual relief。 Sexuality of those involved in influential networks comes up nowhere else， so I can only assume that he wants to point it up as inherent in those who， er， commit treason？ Become Communist spies？ Following through this line of thinking is unpleasant if you don’t already live in the same philosophical territory as Ferguson。 Ferguson isn’t particularly delicate about covering his conservative tracks。 He devotes a whole chapter to Henry Kissinger’s network and references the two-volume biography Ferguson himself wrote on Kissinger， without once mentioning anything unsavory about this character or the US administration with which he was involved。 Unless you count the fact that Ferguson is impressed with how little Watergate shit stuck to Kissinger， which， YMMV。 He describes the Apostle society （whence arose the Cambridge Five） as， variously， 'silly'。 'famously awkward'， and 'blood-curdling'。 He claims Lenin ‘richly deserved’ to be arrested by the Russion provisional government in 1917。 He calls regulation an ‘epidemic’。 He says that Thatcher’s government was heterogenous because it contained， wait for it， a woman and some Jews。 He treats Walter Walker as a hero for writing a ‘counter-insurgency bible’ for the imperialists of the world。 He downplays the virulence of PewDiePie and Milo Yiannopoulus by claiming they’re identical due to their haircuts。 He describes the brutal conquest of South America by Europeans as ‘discovery’。 In defence of Masons （lol）， he states that ‘a striking feature of the ‘Charges’ was how undemanding they were。 All Masons had to be ‘good and true Men [。。。] no women [。。。] No Mason could be a stupid atheist’。 As a woman and atheist， I’d call those pretty fucking demanding， actually！“[。。。] the Tories slumped to defeat at the hands of a rejuvenated Labour party， who had followed Nelson Mandela’s example by abandoning ‘the common ownership of the means of production’ as a core policy goal。”A fact Ferguson， predictably， applauds。He is a not particularly subtle Islamophobe:“Even if， as seems likely， Islamic State is defeated in Iraq and Syria， its network in cyberspace and in the West will live on， a toxic milieu where the memes of dawa> can spread， converting one loser after another to the cause of murderous martyrdom。”He also demonstrates some outright logic fails， such as this in his introduction:‘Even our participation in the activities of hierarchically structured institutions such as churches or political parties is more akin to networking than working， because we are involved on a voluntary basis and not in the expectation of cash compensation。’Sooooo … the Catholic Churches’ assets aren’t worth billions？ Politicians aren’t paid whopping salaries out of taxpayer money？ Um， what？It’s also pretty funny where recent things haven’t aged well， like calling Dominic ‘I just wanted to visit a castle’ Cummings iconoclastic。Ferguson basically wants a world with less regulation:“That means resisting the temptation to build complexity when （as in the case of financial regulation） simplicity is the better option。”But via old-fashioned hierarchy， because network triumph causes - in his opinion - an unappealing state of anarchy。 He’s also hilariously out-of-touch about how likely the ‘majority of mankind’ will be to ‘uncomplainingly devote themselves to harmless leisure pursuits in return for some modest but sufficient basic income。’ Most of us， Niall。 Most of us。 Maybe if you talked to anyone who hadn’t been to Harvard or used their education to join a libertarian think tank， you’d know that。 。。。more
Al Wright
，
Loquacious and succinct in a back and forth that is the writing style of Niall Ferguson。 Do not get too hung up on the hierarchy verses networking paradigms， they act merely as a scaffolding for the author to spread out his views of the world。 The broad timeline allows a reader to skip parts that may not hold interest while still driving the theme home。 Yes Virginia networks matter but some networks matter morelthan others。Ferguson is always a pleasure to read and almost always gets me to think Loquacious and succinct in a back and forth that is the writing style of Niall Ferguson。 Do not get too hung up on the hierarchy verses networking paradigms， they act merely as a scaffolding for the author to spread out his views of the world。 The broad timeline allows a reader to skip parts that may not hold interest while still driving the theme home。 Yes Virginia networks matter but some networks matter morelthan others。Ferguson is always a pleasure to read and almost always gets me to think and rethink my position。 Usually for the better。 Cheers！ 。。。more
Aurimas Šimeliūnas
，
https://www。vz。lt/premium/verslo-klas。。。 https://www。vz。lt/premium/verslo-klas。。。 。。。more
Gary Boland
，
Some interesting ideas from Ferguson， but like a lot of his work he has over stayed his welcome and worn out the idea to death。 He picks some interesting examples of how networks were essential for the spreading of ideas （including the classic and often cited Paul Revere's ride to alert the colonies that the British were attacking）。 Sadly I feel that this is a case in point of less is more Some interesting ideas from Ferguson， but like a lot of his work he has over stayed his welcome and worn out the idea to death。 He picks some interesting examples of how networks were essential for the spreading of ideas （including the classic and often cited Paul Revere's ride to alert the colonies that the British were attacking）。 Sadly I feel that this is a case in point of less is more 。。。more
Sam Reaves
，
Niall Ferguson is a prominent public intellectual， somewhat controversial for his right-leaning views and no stranger to publicity for， among other things， his marriage to Ayaan Hirsi Ali。 Whatever you think of his politics， he has produced a number of big， absorbing works with original and interesting takes on world history。The theme of this one is that much of history is explained by the tug-of-war between networks （the square） and hierarchies （the tower）。 （The title comes from the Piazza del Niall Ferguson is a prominent public intellectual， somewhat controversial for his right-leaning views and no stranger to publicity for， among other things， his marriage to Ayaan Hirsi Ali。 Whatever you think of his politics， he has produced a number of big， absorbing works with original and interesting takes on world history。The theme of this one is that much of history is explained by the tug-of-war between networks （the square） and hierarchies （the tower）。 （The title comes from the Piazza del Campo in Siena， where a high tower looms over a broad public square。） Ferguson starts by presenting an introduction to network theory with its nodes， edges， hubs， 'betweenness centrality' and other jargon; you don't really have to master it to follow the argument。 He then looks at a variety of historical developments and shows how they were worked out via the interplay of networks and hierarchies。 There's a lot of fascinating stuff here， from the Illuminati （yes， they really existed） through the Rothschilds and Henry Kissinger right up to the creeping （and creepy） influence of Facebook。 We learn how the printing press supercharged the Reformation and how the British defeated the Malayan insurgency。 We see how networks spread innovation and hierarchies preserve order; both are necessary for the progress of civilization。Agree or disagree， it will get you thinking about the world from a new angle; Ferguson is one of the best at bringing intellectual debates to a popular audience。 。。。more
James
，
Well researched。 Enjoy writing style。 Extremely interesting hard read for novice on the subject
Anh
，