5 comments about The Beginnings of Rome: Italy From the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (Circa 1,000 to 264 B.C.) (Routledge History of the Ancient World).

1. This is an excellent book that I think is primarily intended for a scholarly audience (experts in the field, professional historians and archaeologists, etc.) but is also very valuable to an interested amateur like myself.

   Cornell goes through the early history of Rome and sets out what the evidence is and what we can reliably conclude from it. One of the best features of the book is his willingness, all too rare even among scholars, to recognize when the evidence is inconclusive and to admit that we have no way of knowing the answer to a particular question. He is also clear about the limitations of archaeological data, and recognizes the way it is often misused to support historical theses when, in fact, it is rather the histoprical ideas that allow for the interpretation of the archaeologucal data in the first place.

   However, while Cornell is pretty good about presenting the narrative historical tradition, the book generally covers the history with fairly large brushstrokes and jumps from one large topic to another without trying to string together a coherent narrative. Because of this, this book is best used as a second reference on early Roman history. That is, it shouldn't be the first book you read on the topic. I think you'd be best served by first reading a good narrative history to provide the framework, and then read this work to fill in the details and show up any inaccuracies.

   It is well written and suprisingly readable, not at all dry. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who has some knowledge of early Roman history but would like to learn more about the "state of the art" in that field.




2. A book that was much needed in the field. Scholarly but not overly pedantic and certainly not impenetrable.
   The author relies much archeology and offers no easy solutions to theoretical problems.
   The conclusions offered are in various shades of gray depending on the reliability and amount of evidence. However the reader should be aware that certain theories are being pushed here with which many might disagree.
   Rome certainly did not come from a monolithic source and the author provides a survey of the many cultures that inhabited that peninsula as well as the outside civilizations that colonized it. However the book is not without certain controversies.
   One of the author's great strengths in this book is his knowledge of current archaeological discoveries Etruria and in Latium as well as period of orientalization and early Iron Age. Thus, the book's greatest strength is its careful synthesis of historical and archaeological data for the period preceding the republic; and it is likewise excellent concerning Roman external affairs and conquest of Italy. Perhaps the books biggest weakness is its insufficiently critical treatment of the ancient literary sources .
   The book's 15 chapters are methodically presented and are augmented with very helpful illustrations and tables. A brief overview of human culture in Italy from the Bronze Age to the early Iron Age. The author's treatment of the importance of ascribing cultural difference between inhumation and cremation I personally found somewhat controversial.
   In this reviewers opinion he rightly dismisses some of the value of the written tradition of the formation of Rome.
   Further controversy is raised in chapter four with the authors contention that the clan did not proceed the city-state and heroic graves but were enmeshed together. It does give one something to think about.
   Yet another controversy offered in this book which personally I take issue with is the minimization of the influence of the Etruscans on Roman culture.
   Actually there is quite a bit to chew on here yet I do not what to dissuade the reader form picking it up. Just be aware that there is a lot of theory in this book some of which many academics might take issue.
   One thing the book successfully establishes is that by the beginning of the early third century B.C. Rome had acquired the political structure which laid the foundations for its later greatness.
   
   One would hope the reader after being inspired by this volume would look into authors that offer equally compelling alternative theories.
   Highly recommended.



3. This is one of the best books I have ever read. And I do not mean just books about ancient Rome or history books. I have read it three times and just for the kick of it. I am neuroscientist and not a classical scholar but I love history and this is history writing at its best: scholarly, fair, witty, and elegantly written (sometimes donwright dazzling). Cornell lets the readers into his secret cabinet and shows them the raw materials the professional historian works with. Amazingly, this does not detract from the magic of the "story" but makes it all the more enthralling. Don't walk run and buy this book!



4. An informative and thorough discussion of the history of early Rome. "The Early History of Rome" provides an intense discussion of archaeological and legendary evidence and attempts, with great success, to separate actual history from the legends. A must have book for any student of Rome and of things Roman. A standing ovation to T.J. Cornell for an excellent study.



5. This volume of the Routledge History of the Ancient World by Cornell is simply brillant. I read it three times and I will surely read it again. It provides a fascinating comparison between the myths and legends of archaic Rome and the reality that lies behind it. One of the most beautiful examples is the part when Cornell analyses the historic bases of a figure like the Roman king Servius Tullus. He cites a stunning piece of scholarship of the emperor Claudius where he explains to his fellow Romans that Servius Tullus was called by the Estruscan Macstarna (which may mean in Latin "Magister" signifying that he was the right hand of the king serving as a magister equitus at that time of his career), information that lets you "feel history" when Cornell then makes you look at a drawing of an Estruscan wall painting showing possibly this Macstarna involved in some action of killing enemies. Everytime when I read this passage of the book I get a chicken skin...to my mind the author really understands to tell a story out of some facts that may themselves be rather dry.

5 comments about The Punic Wars: Rome, Carthage, and the Struggle for the Mediterranean.

1. The late Field Marshall Sir Nigel Bagnall has done something in this book that is unique in my reading experience.
   
   First, this book is a history of the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. It is a military history, written from the standpoint of a senior military officer who is able to see and understand what the military of both sides were doing.
   
   Second, this book goes beyond the military history of the two countries to explain the internal workings, the culture, the commercial activities of the two countries. He is then able to relate these points to the overall battle.
   
   Third, the reason to study history is to be able to relate what happened to what is happening now. And he is able to relate these wars from so long ago to the conflict between the Soviet Union and the West.
   
   Fourth, at the beginning of wars, the finding of competant generals has been a problem. This was true in the Punic wars. This was certainly true in the American Civil War (witness the number of generals Lincoln put in charge of the Army of the Potomac). And it was true at the start of World War II on the part of both the British and the Americans. In the short wars of the future, this cannot be allowed to happen.
   
   Splendid history with direct applicability to modern times.



2. This is a well researched and written book, so why the 2 stars? Simply put this book is written by another white man who writes in a fashion that clearly shows his distaste for his own race and civilization, a trend that is all too common in this pathetic era of self-doubt and media induced frenzies of political correctness.
   
   Here are a few examples: when the Romans commit some form of atrocity such as the sacking of allied cities to Carthage it is described as blood lust and wickedness, whereas if it is done by the Carthaginians it was done out of tactical necessity and no malice was involved...give me a break. The sacking of Roman cities described by the author's idol Hannibal, are always glossed over but the author never misses a chance to characterize Roman sackings as acts of folly and blood lust. Not to mention that the author gleefully tries to remind everyone that the Romans used slaves while he never states the fact that the Carthaginians also used slaves as well. The message is clear : white man bad...ethnic good.
   
   Furthermore during the first Punic War the Roman navy suffered greatly from storms that destroyed their fleet on several occasions. This also happened to the Carthaginians during the Second War. The author states that for the Carthaginians this was ill luck and unfortunate, but for the Romans he states that it was incompetence. This is just one of the examples of double standards he applies to his much loved Carthaginians. The author is clearly one who wants to break with the image that Romans were mighty warriors (after all they conquered a vast empire) and he wants to install a revisionist notion that the Romans were in no way superior to other soldiers as was stated in previous historical works.
   
   The author does, on the other hand, repeatedly drool over the supposed incredible prowess of the Numidian cavalry. The author gives an impression that the Numidians are the ultimate warriors. If that were so then how come they did not carve out a vast empire of their own? At the end of the Third Punic War the Numidians did have a small kingdom on the North coast of Africa that was united under one King. When this king died his kingdom fragmented when his sons fought one another to control it. The author somehow manages to try and blame the Romans (evil white men after all) for this because they were in negotiations with one of the sons for an alliance. Wouldn't it be the Numidians fault if they were fighting amongst one another instead of cooperating? How was this the Romans fault? The author could just not resist blaming the white man I guess.
   
   These are only a few examples of the author's ethnic worshipping...there at many other examples throughout the book. If the Romans truly were as ungifted as the author tries to have us imagine then they would never have gone down in history as a great empire.
   
   If you can't get enough of ethnic hero worship and have low self esteem then by all means get this book. Otherwise get another version of the Punic Wars.



3. ~The Punic Wars : Rome, Carthage, and the Struggle for the Mediterranean~ is some really bold historical prose capturing one of the most resounding conflicts in antiquity between the Carthaginians and the Romans, which were a series of three wars between 264 B.C. and 146 B.C. For the first time in United States, Thomas Duanne books has brought British historian Nigel Bagnall's epic history to print in 2005. The Punic Wars forever changed the destiny of Rome and marked their unfettered ascent to becoming an imperial power to be reckoned with. These two Mediterranean peoples stood in enmity one against the other, and their climatic struggle would set the balance of power in favor of Rome for the ages. In the third century before Christ, the great naval power in the world was not Rome but Carthage. The Carthaginians were descendants of the seafaring Semitic race the Phoenicians and their campaign of colonization inevitably brought them into a clash of arms with the Romans who had imperial ambitions of their own. As the Romans solidified their control over the Italian peninsula, Carthage extended their control over North Africa's entire arable coastline. Likewise, when Carthage expanded its colonies to Spain, Sardinia, and Sicily-they sparked a clash with the Romans. Treaties were broken and honor was at stake. The Romans took over Sicily seeking a buffer zone to minimize hit-and-run naval raids on the Italic peninsula. Hamilcar Barca and Hasdrubal sought to create a Carthaginian bastion on the Iberian (i.e. Spain) and its ancillary islands. What is more, the bold gambit of Hannibal is brought to life, as his ambition in Iberia is recaptured with amazing detail. The author meticulously documents Hannibal's painstaking and arduous transalpine march as his men struggled to brave the elements of Gaul, as well as the climatic battle with the Romans. The late British historian and former soldier Nigel Bagnall captures the epic clash of personalities with amazing detail. With the decimation of Carthage's Navy, an account of Rome's brutul subjugation of Carthage and her colonies is captured with astonishing detail. Cato's merciless quip "delenda est Carthago" ("Carthage must be destroyed") surmised the belligerent Roman policy toward their Mediterranean neighbors towards the south. Carthage itself would be utterly vanquished and plowed over with pillars of salt. Bagnall gives life to the ancient historical accounts in a keen narrative history. This book is powerful and yet easy to read. All things considered, it is a really good laymen's history of a pivotal war in the annals of history. Bagnall is possessed of a profound historical acumen that makes this particular book come to life. Though, a cursory understanding of Roman history is probably prerequisite for readers.



4. This is one of the worst attempts at writing a historical account of a major episode I have ever encounted. Bagnall was clearly a novice at this sort of thing and it shows throughout the book. There are numerous glaring errors in detail, such as misidentifying key figures, misplacing sites and dates of events, and an almost incredible lack of sensible analysis of the reasons or importance of events. The reviewer who referred to Bagnall as a (Hannibal) hero worshipper was quite correct - Bagnall is one of those Hannibal apoligists who finds it necessary to glorfy a loser at all costs, including the cost of truth. The comments of another reviewer concerning Scipio, the true victor of the second punic war, are as misguided as Bagnall's dismal attempt to write history. For the reader interested in this history, please read Goldsworthy, Hart, or Scullard - these are ligitimate historians!



5. I liked Bagnall's book, but they could've edited the thing a little better. I found lots of places where a comma was needed for clarity. Perhaps it's his style.

5 comments about The Young Carthaginian.

1. G. A. Henty lived just over a hundred years ago and wrote dozens and dozens of books. He would research everything that had to do with the time period before he even started writing, hence, his works are very, very historically accurate. He takes a military event and tells the story from the piont of veiw of a fictional young man. In every book, Henty's main character is a good, honest, brave young man, and a perfect role model. The Young Carthaginian takes place during Hannibal's invasion of Rome. It is a very well written peice that goes into great detail about the invasion, with some exciting made-up parts involving his main character. I would reccommend this book for anyone over 10, there are a few dry parts, and the wording can get a little tough for youngsters. All-in-all this is a great book that you'll enjoy reading.



2. G.A. Henty was a Victorian gentleman who wrote historical fiction for young people. I learned of him in reading Arthur Schlesinger's autobiography "A Life in the Twentieth Century". Schlesinger credits Henty with awakening an interst in history that was to last a lifetime. I see why. Henty's approach is to imagine a young lad and thrust him into interesting historical periods. The young man possessed of courage, pluck, honesty and compassion finds these attributes necessary to his success in the novel. Much like the Horatio Alger novels of a somewhat later American time, Henty was also conciously teaching the manly virtues. In "The Young Cathaginian" Henty pulls off a slick trick. Our young hero Malchus is a relative of Hannibal the great Cartaginian general who dared to cross the Alps to attack Carthage's great rival, Rome. While Henty admires Hannibal and presents Malchus as virtually flawless, it is clear that Carthage was a corrupt entity and that her deserved defeat was crucial to the growth of Western civilization. This is not a dry history, merely laden with moral overlays. It is also good fun. There is a lion hunt in Africa. A wolf hunt in the Spanish mountains. Escapes through the underground reserviors of Carthage. And countless vivid battles. And a charming little romance. I am glad I stumbled across the Henty output. Sclesinger is right: Henty makes history fun!



3. Everyone, it seems, has heard of Hannibal bringing his army,including the elephants,through the Alps, right to the doorstep of Rome. However, a readable account of Carthage vs. Rome is not easy to find. I've been very happy to find this fascinating historical novel as the best way to teach my two sons, ages 11 and 14, about this time in history. There are some valuable lessons for us all in the book--valor, honor, and how corruption destroys great nations.



4. Who would have thought that a book written in the 1800s could be so appealing today? Doing a little internet research, I have found that G.A. Henty lived from 1832-1902, and the books he wrote were historical fiction "for boys". He was called "The Prince of Story-Tellers" and "The Boy's Own Historian", which certainly may have been true, but I'm an adult female who loved this tale! The style of writing sounds a little formal and old-fashioned, but it actually helps create a feeling of antiquity, appropriate for its ancient setting during the Punic Wars.

   The fictional and lovable hero, Marchus, a relative of the famous Hannibal, accompanies him on the Carthaginian campaign against Rome. I learned so much about Hannibal through this book, yet the majority of the plot involves other adventures that Marchus gets into. He has near escapes from bears, wolves, lions, treacherous tribesmen. In two instances, he escapes with the help of an elephant, and a raft in the subterranean reservoir of Carthage. This was fun stuff, and I am so impressed that this book I found, that is so old it doesn't even have a publication date in it, could be so delightful. Someone could make a great movie out of this!




5. A simply outstanding historical novel set in the age of ancient Rome's legendary conflict with the city of Carthage, The Young Carthaginian by G.A. Henty is a totally thrilling historical action/adventure tale that will rivet the listener's attention from beginning to end. Superbly and dramatically narrated by William Sutherland, The Young Carthaginian is written with detailed attention to historical accuracy and truly brings to life a long-lost time of Hannibal, the legions of Rome, and the absolute destruction of a great maritime empire. A confidently recommended addition to any personal, school, or community library audiobook collection, The Young Carthaginian is complete and unabridged on eleven compact discs, offering 12 hours, 30 minutes of an impressive, "theater of the mind" quality entertainment experience.

5 comments about Pride of Carthage.

1. The Punic wars are an interesting period in history to write about. Very few people know or care about them now, but at the time they must have seemed of earth-shattering importance. This book captures that feeling, through its descriptions of battles such as Trebbia and Trasimene, and the thoughts of such major players as Scipio and Hannibal. Both of these generals have moments of real humanity, such as Scipio during the battle of Cannae; or Hannibal writing letters to his wife or (spoiler alert) just after having been delivered his brother's head.
   
   It also takes time to look at events through the eyes of minor players, such as the soldiers Imco Vaca and Tusselo, and the camp follower Aradna. (I don't care what the New York Times said, I enjoyed their stories a lot.)
   
   If I had to complain about this book, I would say it didn't also come with an extra book detailing the history of the war, and documenting every change made for the novel. But Pride of Carthage has incited me to conduct more reading on this period (I just bought one overall history of all three punic wars, and another focusing on the second one), so I feel like that's coming anyway.
   
   Excellent reading!



2. In the 6th grade my teacher briefly glossed over the Punic Wars over the course of 3 minutes. She seemed about as interested in the subject as I would be giving a speech on the history of cotton briefs. But what fascinated me were the pictures they had in the textbook of files of elephants walking through the Alps in wintertime, and another of same elephants charging through ranks of Roman soldiers. The images appealed to my 11 year old mind and stayed with me many years until high school where I ended up doing a term paper on the subject of the Punic Wars. Hannibal Barca's exploits in the Punic Wars and his long string of victories against overwhelming odds have permanently cemented him as the ultimate statement of the underdog taking it to the neighborhood bully.
   
   I've read several books about the subject, chief among them Leonard Cottrell's "Hannibal: Enemy of Rome" and pored over battle maps of Cannae, Trebia, and Zama. I'm fascinated with the subject in totality. Heck, if I had the choice (and if the wife would let me) I'd own and ride a war elephant to work everyday. So when my wife asked me if I wanted any books from the library recently I asked her to pick me up a good Punic Wars themed book, and this is the one she brought home. After having read it I must admit I was very pleased with the experience.
   
   David Anthony Durham has taken the subject of the 2nd Punic War (inarguably the most famous of the 3-part epic wars between Carthage and Rome) and Hannibal's war against Rome and crafted a rather remarkable narrative tale about his life and times. Some historical liberties have been taken with the source material (ie; Hannibal's campaign is shortened from 17 years to 5, familial relationships, etc) to make the narrative flow more easily, and Durham admits as much in the epilogue. This will be a major sticking point with some people, although I didn't mind so much as it condensed the story much better.
   
   There's precious little we know about the main players. Roman historian Livy provides most of our information about the character of Hannibal and from this we can easily surmise the man was a military genius, in my opinion rivaled only by Alexander the Great. Durham takes the time to paint in the character of Hannibal, taking pains to show details of what his childhood would be like, his relationships with his siblings, and what his motivations were. Durham's portrayal of Hannibal might not be spot on to the real Hannibal, but I felt it must be pretty darned close to it. I can't help but believe that the man engendered great loyalty from his men and that he was revered by his family, and likewise despised by the leadership of Carthage. Durham's Hannibal is very well developed, and we watch as he formulates his cunning plan to invade Italy via the Alps bringing a large army to dismember the Roman Republic piece by piece.
   
   A couple of the characters are fabricated to give the book a little extra flavor. Imco Vaca is a young Carthaginian captain who doubts his own ability and is haunted by a particular action he took at the city of Saguntum. During his travels with Hannibal through Iberia, Gaul, and Italy he comes across camp follower Aradna, whom he develops something of a love/lust relationship with. Hannibal's siblings I felt were portrayed well, especially Hanno and Hasdrubal. The character of Mago is developed early in the story but seldom appears for the rest of the tale until near the end. The only other persons we really get to know as well as Hannibal himself are his wife Imilce and Publius Scipio, the general who defeats him at the Battle of Zama. This was a bit disconcerting since much attention is given, for instance, to the conflicted character of Hanno, Hannibal's older but much less militarily apt brother. Much of the first half of the book is spent on Hanno and then he summarily disappears for a great swath of it only to appear in a blurb at the end. Almost like an afterthought.
   
   Durham really writes the narrative well. The story is well structured and easy to follow. His depictions of battle are very well crafted, and I feel his description of the Battle of Cannae is by far the most engrossing. I especially liked his account of Balearic slingers, the heavy Libyan infantry, and especially the feared Numidian cavalry, which seemed to be a large reason behind Hannibal's success.
   
   I thoroughly enjoyed the book and recommend it to most anyone interested in the subject of the Punic Wars, although, as I stated before, some will not be happy with the "condensing" of the historical facts to make a smoother story.



3. This book was a great read and gives amazing details on the lives of hannibal, his family and the Soldiers who followed him.



4. I knew from other reviewers that the history was flawed in this book. I also learned from reading it that the dialogue is sluggish and sloppy, with such english-centric and Phoenicianly incomprehensible puns like "Watch your ass---your donkey, I mean", and endless internal dialogue paragraphs in between lines of actual dialogue that SHOULD be happening in a fluid conversation.
   
   The story I gave up on twice, and had to force my way through, until I came to a point where I simply could not continue, and just read ahead to different points in the novel. The characters are so lifeless and one-dimensional, it's painful trying to care about them.
   
   There was no chemical reaction with this one; total bust.



5. While I wasn't as negative about this book as some critics, I do think it took a very dynamic time in history and rinsed all the excitement out of it. It seemed the novel lost any impetus after the battle of Cannae. Ross Leckie's Hannibal is about half the length and a much better read. Try that one first, gentle reader.

3 comments about Roman Military Equipment: From The Punic Wars To The Fall Of Rome.

1. I have both the first and the current editions of this utterly invaluable book. It is undoubtedly the best and most detailed discussion of Roman military equipment available and it is a "must read" for anyone interested in the subject, be he or she an historian, re-enactor, artist or whatever. I would give this book six stars, but there are only five available.



2. My brother is a big history and punic wars buff, and he really enjoyed it. From what I looked at the illustrations were amazing and the book seemed well written.



3. I am a Roman era re-enactor and I absolutely loved this book! Not only did in inform me with details I didn't know, but also informed me with what was wrong with my impression.
   
   This is a must have for any Roman era enthusiast!!

5 comments about The Punic Wars 264-146 BC (Essential Histories).

1. The great difficulties with writing a history book are always a) Trying to present the information without bias (or as close as is possible), and b) taking the reader with you on the journey, involving them in the events.
   Nigel Bagnall succeds on both counts.This is a book packed with all sorts of interest and some wonderfully clear and precise military writing.Bagnall clearly knows his subject well, and his enthusiasm for the history of this great conflict is contagious.
   This is a history book that will involve and engage you fully.



2. Another decent Osprey book. Only 95 pages and easy to read. The book has some holes in the content, but it is only meant to be a starter. I mean how can you cover all three Punic Wars in 95 pages? You can't. I have read quite a few Osprey books because I like the abridged content, but in this case I didn't think the 95 pages was enough. For instance the battle of Cannae was covered in two pages. That just wasn't enough for the single most important battle of all the Punic Wars and one which could have ended Rome before it ever became the empire it grew into. I like the glossy pages and the color maps were very helpful. The author spends a little time on the social aspects of these wars between Carthage and Rome and how they affected ordinary citizens. This was helpful, but again it was only a couple pages and the one page bibliography wasn't much help for further reading. I'm sure it is difficult to write about the Punic Wars because it is all one sided. After the third war Carthage was completely wiped out so we have no evidence or writings which came out of Carthage. All the primary sources have come out of ancient Rome. Generally speaking I like these Essential Histories series of books and I would recommend these to anyone. However, if you really want to learn about the Punic Wars I would suggest searching elsewhere for a larger volume. This one is just too short.



3. I decided to give this book a try because I'd read and really liked the book on Alexander the Great in the Essential Histories series. it was short and captivating.

   but I was less impressed with this volume on the Punic Wars. as far as presentation is concerned, I think it's short on images, anecdote and other things that made Alexander a smoother and more enjoyable read. these things aren't superfluous, they help the history go down easy :)

   I was uncomfortable with the overall structure of the book: the not-entirely-chronological presentation of the wars, the brief Hannibal/Scipio biographies which followed, etc. the progression didn't seem natural.

   also, in terms of content, the introduction was a little week in telling us what the Roman Republic was like at the time, what it's tendancies were, etc.

   to this book's credit, you can't beat a short and concise history if, like me, you're not a big historial. this volume of the Essential Histories series just didn't pull it off well.




4. I have read Polybius' account of the first and second Punic Wars, and this book gives a superb summary that is parallel to his massive work. Furthermore, the author analyzes the information and makes educated arguments about the events in question. Good maps, illustrations, and photographs enhance the reader's understanding of battle tactics and the geographical situations that the commanders of Rome and Carthage faced.
   
   That being said, this book falls a little short in its summary of the third Punic War. Only three or four pages are spent on its events. Even though the third Punic War only lasted three years, it still deserves a fair summary. Furthermore, the author provided excellent coverage of the interwar years between the first two wars, yet completely ignores the 50+ year gap between the end of the second war and beginning of the third.
   
   All in all, this book is a good secondary source for anyone interested in the era of the Punic Wars.



5. For someone already versed in Roman history, this book may not contain much new information, but for a reader who wants a good, short overview of the Punic Wars, then this works fine for that. At less than one-hundred pages, The Punic Wars 264-146 BC can be read in one sitting, and I found little quarrel with the author's presentation of facts or take on the conflict. Not comprehensive, not meant to be, this book is perfect for someone only wanting to gain a sound working familiarity with these conflicts.

5 comments about The Punic Wars.

1. This is the first book I've read by Goldsworthy, a highly-regarded scholar of Roman history. I enjoyed his descriptions of the battles, his analysis of theories he attempts to disprove and his brevity. Goldsworthy, unlike many Roman scholars, keeps it short and sweet, solidly analysing the Punic Wars in less than 400 pages, while putting the conflict in context and additionally providing a narrative. I suppose the reason I limit this review to four-stars is that I found it a bit too dense at points, with a little too much information, detailing skirmishes and raids. I absolutely love Roman history but this book is a bit too slow to hold one's interest for more than an hour or so. Nonetheless, Goldsworthy's work is well-researched, strongly reasoned and original. He campaigns against the view of ancient political parties, which follows in the tradition of the primary sources, while exposing the reader to ideas he disagrees with. This is an even-handed treatment, as much as is possible at least, without any extant Carthaginian sources. Goldsworthy has written a readable history, accessible to academics and general readership, while relying on (mainly) Polybius and a few later Roman writers. An excellent book, but one which is a serious challenge.



2. Goldsworthy's Punic Wars is a fairly concise account of the three conflicts between Carthage and Rome beginning in the mid-200's BC and spanning approximately 120 years. Rome ultimately destroyed Carthage, but not without some serious setbacks, most significantly at the hands of Hannibal Barca. Nevertheless, Rome's refusal to admit defeat, their commitment to total victory trumped Carthage's more politically conventional approach to warfare resolution and guaranteed a Roman ascendance that would position them for the empire to come.
   
   Drawing primarily from Polybius, Livy, and Appian, Goldsworthy presents a frank, straightforward assessment that is readable, wholly digestible, and, therefore, an excellent summary of the matter at hand. There is no point where the story runs dry, thus The Punic Wars maintains a steady pace that keeps the reader happily plugging along. A very competent and entertaining history, I rate it 4+ stars.



3. I came away from reading this with a satisfied feeling that I more clearly understood the great conflict between Rome and Carthage, the origins of the wars, the campaigns and individual battles, the leadership of both sides, and the consequences of the wars in their effects upon European and world history.
   
   The only negatives I can think of is that there were a few errors in the text, the book lacks a full bibliography - although most referenced sources are covered in the notes - and I don't believe that the author's comparisons of the Punic wars with modern wars, e.g. World War Two or the 1991 Gulf War. were completely accurate; there is still too much propaganda floating about from both conflicts to make them clearly understood, let alone to be comparitive with these ancient struggles.
   
   However, a general comparison that perhaps COULD have been made was the decline of Rome in so many ways - and in spite of its great expansion of power - from the second and third centuries B.C., with the situation of the United States - also in great decline in some ways and in spite of its massive global power. As in, the decline of the farmers/peasantry, the shifting of the military establishment from a citizen militia force to a professional army made up of the poor and of aliens, the increase of political and economic corruption, increased overconfidence and arrogance in the handling of international affairs, and in various other spheres.
   
   The author makes some interesting points re the general disappearance of small farms in Italy and their replacement with large latifundia owned by the wealthy and worked by slaves - consequential to these wars of expansion coupled with the devastation in Italy itself by both sides, and his discussion of the transformation of the Roman legions from a mostly citizen militia force into a professional army.
   
   The book overall is very enlightening and readable and I highly recommend it.



4. Written by an acknowledged authority on the Roman army and aimed at a general audience, this is a fine overview of the Punic Wars. Goldsworthy does a good job of balancing a broader perspective on these conflicts with the basic narrative. As he is quick to point out, there are considerable limits on what we know about the Punic Wars. There are no Carthaginian sources and most knowledge comes from a relatively restricted set of Greek or Roman literary sources, notably the works of the Greek historian Polybius and the Roman historians Livy and Appian. Polybios is generally considered to be the most important of these writers and the later parts of his work are fragmentary.
   
   Goldsworthy provides a nice set of concise narratives of each of the Punic Wars, reconstructing to the extent possible, the major features of the military history. He is a solid writer and these sections read well. The narrative sections are set against an interesting analysis of the background of the Punic Wars and a couple of major themes. Goldworthy, apparently following the analysis of Polybius, sees the Carthaginians as following the common practices of Hellenistic warfare; powerful states waging war with largely professional forces and for defined advantages, leading usually to some form of negotiated capitulation on the part of the loser with the defeated retaining significant assets. The Romans, on the other hand, are presented as remorsely pursuing war until their opponents were completely defeated and Roman superiority established definitively. Again, apparently following Polybius, this is presented as a basic feature of the Roman political system, essentially a state geared for imperialistic warfare and absorption of the conquered. An interesting measure of the commitment of the Roman state is his estimate of the casulties suffered by the Roman political class in the course of military service during the Second Punic War. This is approximately 25%, an astonishing figure.
   
   Another basic theme is the difference in resources between Rome and Carthage. In Goldworthy's analysis, the Romans appear to have possessed not only greater political and social commitment to war but also superior economic and manpower resources. While Carthage was wealthy and could put forward impressive efforts, it never matched the Roman commitments of troops and ships. Both Roman commitment and Roman resources are shown in the First Punic War by the Roman commitment to a grinding war of attrition in the conquest of Sicily and the Roman ability to repeatedly construct and man enormous new fleets. In the Second Punic War, the Romans pursued impressive campaigns in the Italian peninsula, Spain, Sicily, and eventually Africa, while also pursuing war in Greece. For the time, many of these conflicts were remarkably costly. Goldsworthy's estimates of the scope of naval conflicts in the First Punic War and land battles in the Second Punic War are impressive.
   
   There is a good bibliography and footnoting is solid.



5. I have no idea whether this book would be of any value to someone already passably knowledgeable about the subject, to say nothing of someone already well-versed. But if, like me before I read it, you have little to no knowledge of the subject, you will learn a great deal from this book. It gives a very good overview of the wars between Rome and Carthage in the second and third centuries BCE, detailing what is known, and when original sources conflict or are suspect, admitting as much and giving a reasonable idea of what the most plausible speculations are, and if there is one, what the consensus is. The writing, while not particularly lively, is far from stultifying, and generally clear and as concise as practical. It is an understatement and perhaps faint praise to say that if before reading this book, the sum total of your knowledge of the subject is "Hannibal crossed the alps using elephants," you will know far more than that when you finish.

5 comments about Hannibal Crosses the Alps: The Invasion of Italy and the Second Punic War.

1. Although an avid reader, I seemed to have avoided this period in history in general and Hannibal in specific. I came to the subject with a very sparse knowledge of Hannibal and went away with an improved understanding, not only of Hannibal, but also of the political/cultural make up of this period in history. Of particular interest, and well expounded in the book, is how Rome and Carthage related and how ultimately Rome won out.
   
   I saw Professor Prevas speaking on C-SPAN in early February 2006 about his book on Alexander the Great (Envy of the Gods) and found his lecture to be very intriguing. As a result I picked up this book as well as his others. I also highly recommend his book about Xenophon's march of the Greek 10,000. All three are easy reads and very interesting.



2. In "Hannibal Crosses the Alps" John Prevas focuses on what the title suggests, which is the actual crossing of the Alps by Hannibal and his mercenary army. Three of the seven chapters deal with the crossing of the Alps, while the other chapters cover the prior history between Rome and Carthage, Hannibal's rise to power, the ancient sources from which we know this history, and the rest of Hannibal's campaign in Italy after his crossing. There is also an Epilogue in which he discusses what happened to Hannibal, and what happened between Rome and Carthage through the Third Punic War.
   
   John Prevas traveled repeatedly through the Alps seeing for himself the terrain of the many possible routes that Hannibal may have taken in his search for the correct route. The route he pieces together he supports with as much evidence as he can, using the ancient sources as well as the visual information that he was able to gather on his trips. While his case is strong and very persuasive, he does temper his argument with the acknowledgement that as of yet there isn't any physical evidence in the form of remains as of yet to turn conjecture into fact.
   
   While overall I enjoyed this book, there are definitely some weaknesses which could have easily been addressed but sadly were not. First of all, for a work which focuses so much on the routes traveled, there are surprisingly few maps to help the reader visualize things. You may want to arm yourself with an atlas of the ancient world, or even perhaps other books about Hannibal which do contain more maps to help compensate for this lack. In addition, while I do like his writing style, there are places where he repeats himself as well as contradict himself.
   
   In an example of repetition and contradiction, he says more than once that none of the elephants perished on the march through the Alps, but he also says more than once that the finding of elephant remains would help determine the route. Clearly there cannot be remains if no elephants were lost. He also contradicts himself with regards to the climate where he first states that there is no significant difference in the snow levels in the Alps from Hannibal's time to ours (this is in support of his argument that the pass which Hannibal took must have been at a higher elevation than those usually selected by historians), and then later he talks about the receding ice and thawing out of areas which may help find supporting evidence.
   
   I enjoyed reading this book; however, I don't think this would be the first book I would read on Hannibal or the Punic Wars. With some minor updates and rewrites this book could easily be four stars, but for now I can only give it three.



3. I came upon this book while reading Brad Thor's action thriller "Blowback" where it was prominently featured as a reference. I was so impressed by the story of Brad Thor's book that I ordered this one even before I finished reading "Blowback." It was worth it as it complemented the action thriller quite nicely. Though I agree with some of the critics regarding the seemingly annoying repetitions in this book, I also can see its advantages as a tool of learning and memorizing. After all, John Prevas is a professor, isn't he? I also wished Prof. Prevas used more and better maps to illustrate Hannibal's route than he did but for me the satellite images from Google Earth helped to fill that void even though those images, unfortunately, seemed to be stitched together from different shots just at the critical Col de la Traversette area. All in all, John Prevas has my kudos for his research and enjoyable book.



4. John Prevas has revived the interest in the Traversette Pass as a potential Hannibal alpine route in this excellent book. Very readable and with a lively narrative, the ability of Prevas to tell the dramatic story of what led to Hannibal's intrepid crossing in 218 BCE and what followed in Italy is evident. Though not all will agree about the exact route, this book makes a good case for the importance of Hannibal's battles and the daunting circumstances Hannibal's army faced from terrain and enemies as well as bad weather and the length of the march. Having used it in teaching university classes, I know this well-written book by Prevas is a must for Hannibal studies.



5. Quite frankly, this book is one of the best detailed overviews of the Second Punic War. Like any other good history book, you need to know the surrounding factors behind an event in history such as the Second Punic War and Hannibal's invasion of the Italian peninsula. Prevas does just that.
   
   As the book opens, Prevas gives a brief over view of the events leading up to the Second Punic War, including basic histories and legendary origins of Rome and Carthage, the Hamilcar and the First Punic War, a detailed account of Hannibal's invasion of Rome, and also brings the book to a close by giving a brief overview of the Third Punic War and also the death of Hannibal.
   
   The only place Prevas lacks is more maps and diagrams. Not that it has to do with crossing the Alps, but a rough diagram of the Battle of Cannae and other battles would have been an added bonus. Thats just my opinion. If you want more detailed books about the Punic Wars I suggest the "Punic Wars" by Adrian Goldsworthy.
   
   Overall, Prevas does a remarkable job by getting the points across while sticking close to historical records and descriptions of the Second Punic War just over 200 pages. Great great read.

5 comments about The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC (Cassell Military Paperbacks).

1. When I first purchased this book, I was a bit hesitant as I thought that I have read so much on the subject already. Yet I am glad I did. The book is well written and explains the subject well.
   
   I would highly recommend it.



2. Military history has been slighted in recent years, with the possible exception of John Keegan's insightful books. In part it is because focusing on the role of the military runs counter to the modern bias that social currents determine the nature of wars and not wars the direction of the times. We also embrace a moralistic tendency to believe that violence never really solves anything. But violence has solved many things even in modern times and until we stop resorting to war to resolve inter-state conflicts, the study of war is --or should be-- of importance to us.
   
   Goldsworthy has written a solidly researched, lively (well --fairly lively) and measured history of the Punic Wars (265-146 BC). The three wars encompassed a theater of operations that spanned the south of Europe (Spain, Italy), the Mediterranean Sea (Sicily) and northern Africa, and took more than a century to complete. The wars were the formative conflict of the Roman Republic.
   
   Goldsworthy argues convincingly that Rome eventually destroyed Carthage for four reasons: (1) unlike other ancient states, Rome refused to concede defeat, no matter how badly or frequently its troops were beaten in battle; (2) the Romans excelled in learning from enemies, borrowing their tactics to defeat them; (3) Rome's allies remained true to Rome, regardless of defeat or victory, more often than was true of Carthage's allies; and (4) Rome possessed resources well beyond those of Carthage, both in men and goods, which made it possible for Rome to fight a multi-decade war regardless of the cost.
   
   This is a substantial book, accessible to novice as well as professional. Alas, the days are gone when one could count on school children knowing of the conflict between Carthage and Rome because they'd read about it in their Latin classes, but the story is still well worth telling.
   
   David Keymer
   Modesto CA



3. I would say 4.5 stars actually, my only complaint really being thata couple of pages unbinded near the beginning of the book, I may have simply got the one copy that has this problem, and the need to do a little paperback repair is really my only complaint. The writing itself is so good in my opinion, that I wasn't discouraged by this little mishap at the beginning of my reading.
   
   I enjoyed the reading of this book for two reasons. For starters, it makes an effort to cover little complexities that might be difficult for someone reading about this period for the first time, but it also does so thoroughly in such a way as to allow someone such as myself to grasp everything that's going on in entirety. I've read other books on the Pelopennesian War and the Greco-Persian War which were very good, but there were some bits of knowledge that were left out, such as what a trireme was, other than a military boat of some sort. This book does not leave such details unknown to the amateur reader. However once explaining the details, this book does not at all shy away from giving the fullest possible picture of events that might be provided based on the available source material.
   
   Without spoiling the contents of the book, I can only tell you that this book has not only been educational in terms of military history, but also in terms of roman history. If you miss that while reading through events, the epilogue does a great job of wrapping it all together while pondering all the things in Rome's future that may have been in some part due to events that made Rome a power in the first place.



4. Adrian Goldsworthy has written an interesting and most credible history of the Punic Wars, one of the most important stretches in Roman history. What makes Goldsworthy's book worth reading?
   
   First, he seems to have gone to great lengths to critcally assess available evidence and then present the story of these fabled conflicts as accurately as is possible. Second, he avoids the pitfall of burying the reader in a blizzard of names, dates, and locations, thereby allowing me to follow the action and personalities. He makes a concerted effort to help the reader from confusing the many Scipios, Hamilcars, Hannos, etc with each other. He picks out that which is really important and summarizes the rest. Finally, he looks at these wars in the context of the cultures that were fighting them, pointing out how cultural attitudes affected outcomes -- a refreshing approach.
   
   In summary, this book gives a reliable, interesting, and accessible review of the Punic Wars. My one criticism is that this tome rarely grabs the reader in the way that some history books do (such as Peter Massey's Dreadnought or McCullough's John Adams). In defense of the author, he does not have the flood of primary materials that these authors had. Nonetheless, it was not a book that I felt compelled to pick up every evening, hence 4 stars instead of 5.
   
   Steven Mlodinow



5. Adrian Goldsworthy has combined ancient sources and modern interpretations to give us a breathtaking account of the three wars which raged between Rome and its Mediterranean rival, Carthage over the course of a century. One of his strengths is his ability to describe the complex logistics and manoeuvres of the significant battles of this era. He also gives perceptive accounts of the political machinations which brought about the policies, alliances and betrayals of the period.
   The most successful and effective general of the entire tale, is Hannibal, one of the Barca family, and Goldsworthy gives him his due, describing the tactics by which he invaded Rome from Spain, and humiliated legion after Roman legion. However the narrative is clear that Hannibal's invasion was a gamble - he ditched his heavier equipment in order to speed the crossing of the Alps, and arrived in Rome without the ability or inclination to capture population centres. It is here that Goldsworthy's admiration of the sheer obduracy of the Romans shines through. Hannibal, with Italy at his feet, after destroying many legions, sent negotiators to treat with Rome. To his astonishment, the negotiators were sent away, unheard. The Romans simply would not be defeated, Hannibal was impotent to take the city, and though he roamed undefeated in the Italian peninsula for many years, his enemy would not give up.
   There are detailed accounts of the rise and re-election of various Roman consuls and generals, the authoritarian nature of the elected elite, and the various factions which ruled Rome. I found it interesting that those plebs who did achieve elective office and military leadership, sometimes found that while their ascent was meteoric, their lack of privileged family backround could prove their undoing when events moved against them.
   It has been said that history is written by the victors, and the book is significantly less descriptive and detailed when dealing with Carthaginian affairs. However I think the spirit of the Romans shines through, their ability to describe their own society, their sheer self-belief led to their creating and leaving detailed accounts of themselves and their society in a way which was unmatched among their neighbouring societies.
   Overall this is an excellent survey of the events, and contains significant pointers for a deeper study of the various elements.

5 comments about The Rise of the Roman Empire (Penguin Classics).

1. It is unfortunate that, despite the fact that some of Polybius's Histories have been lost over time, Penguin made the decision to cut out even more from the text that has luckily survived down to us through the ages. To make matters worse, the introduction doesn't really state clearly what exactly has been cut.

   Next time I want to read one of the classics, I'll go immediately to Loeb. It's worth the extra cash. Anyone want my Penguin copy?




2. Polybius treatment of the encounter between the Roman Commander Regulus and the Spartan General Xanthippus (leading the Carthaginians), and the "lessons learned" from their encounter justifies buying this book. The rest is gravy.



3. As stated by previous reviewer Polybius treatment of the encounter between the Roman Commander Regulus and the Spartan General Xanthippus (leading the Carthaginians), and the "lessons learned" from their encounter justifies buying this book.You can still learn from others mistakes.



4. Our times can be best understood from those that have come prior. Reading Polybius's The Rise of the Roman Empire is one of the good historical sources to assist in this process. A Greek statesman, who saw the rise of Roman first hand and wrote about it.
   
   Greece was waning in 200 BC and Roman was rising and the Mediterranean gained a new empires. His book is more a personal overview and historical discussion of the events in tune to Tocqueville's Democracy in America, but less a study like the brilliant Capitalism and Civilization in the 15th to 18th Century by Braudel. If you like reading the Roman histories from Livy, this will give you an understanding of the early part of the history, while still a republic. Learn about the effect of Hannibal and the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC.
   
   It is just sad that a lot of his other writings have been lost to us.



5. Great Book....slow starter...leaves you hanging at the end. To bad we have so litle from appian...