The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC (CASSELL MILITARY PAPERBACKS)

Adian Goldworthy is a scholar, literary critic and historian. He does not present the dramatic and patriotic portrayal of Livy, for example, and call that the history, as romantic as that would be. He presents the data, explaining what we know and what we don’t know. It makes the tale less titillating, but more interesting, because you get a sense that what he says did happen, really did. For this reason, Adrian Goldsworthy is one of my favorite authors. Cons: After starting reading this, I stopped reading it at one point because it was confusing. Carthage only had five or six names available and they reused them over and over again. I think someone may have been named Rebecca or something at some point, but she was soon denounced as a freak, and laughed out of town. Some of the most famous Carthaginians in history were the following: Hannibal and Hannibal and Hannibal and Hamilcar and Hamilcar and Bomilcar and Hamilcar and Hamilco and Hamilcar and Bomilcar and Hamilco and Hannibal. I know it sounds simple, you just call everyone by the same name and you want get confused about who you are talking about. In practice, as logical as it sounds, it just doesn’t work out very well. However, once you get past the First Punic War, which is not well-documented, you become bogged down with documentation, which slows history to a crawl and renders excessive name reuse no longer an issue; mostly. There are exceptions. I do remember reading that Hamilcar supplanted the other Hamilcar sometime around the Third Punic war. What struck me about this was that neither Hamilcar, nor Hamilcar, was Hamilcar (and I speak of Hamilcar Barca, that is, who was “the” Hamilcar, Hannibal Barca’s father(and Mago’s father and Hasdrubal’s father)). Note: When I say Hasdrubal, I mean Hasdrubal Barca, not Hasdrubal, Hasdrubal, or Hasdrubal, all of whom I consider to be lesser Hasdrubals. Pros: The story of Carthage is beyond fascinating. It is a bit dry leading up to the Second Punic War, but after that, there is not a dull moment. Prior to that we had little credible history, so there is too much guess work. The campaigns of Hannibal are Caesar-esque in many ways and the tenacity of a defeated Rome that simply refuses to breathe its last is astonishing. The end of the Third Punic War, one of the greatest tricks in history, is also fascinating. If you don’t want the story spoiled, stop reading here, but Rome tricked Carthage into turning over the bulk of its arms and the bulk of its allies and the bulk of its territory and then informed them that now that they were helpless they had to abandon Carthage so Rome could level it. Carthage thought they were complying with treaty stipulations by a victorious enemy. They did not realize that their actions were cementing their own destruction. Carthage never had to surrender out all. They just did because they were not united in commitment to continue the fight. After the Roman trick and the sacking of Carthage, this is the rest of the Carthage’s story

This book was originally published under the title "The Punic Wars", which I think better describes the book than the "Fall of Carthage" because the book is about all three of the Punic Wars. Most books on the Punic Wars deal only with the second one - the one with Hannibal and the elephants crossing the Alps. As the author points out, we know much more about the second war, so it is not surprising that this one gets much more attention. However, the first and third wars are important and should not be ignored. The first explains why the second occurred and the third finishes the story of the conflict. This book is very interesting and I learned a lot more than just about the battles of the Punic Wars. I learned about the Roman army of the period, about the Roman political system and politics of the time, and why these wars were fought and their consequences. The fact that this is a republication of a book is important, because this version has been shrunk down in physical size (but not page length). The original is, according to the Amazon description, 9.2x6.3 inches, whereas this book is only 7.7x5 inches. To achieve this smaller size, the size of the print has been reduced, as have the margins. The inner margin is only 3/8 inch from the spine of the book, compared to a more typical 5/8 inch. Why do I mention this? Well, the smaller print makes the book harder to read and more importantly I had to break the spine of the book to be able to see the material at the inner margin. Thus, it is doubtful that the book can stand up to a second reading. This is OK for a novel that one might throw away after reading, but it is not for a book that one might want to keep for reference. As noted in the title of this review, this is an academic treatment. Most non-academic treatments provide a straightforward narrative based on the author's view of the history. Professor Goldsworthy presents all interpretations of the history. Thus, much of the book contains sentences of the sort - A believes ..., whereas C believes..., and D believes..., and I believe that ... is closest to the truth because... This approach interrupts the narrative, but it is a fairer approach in that it makes it clear that there is a great difference of opinion about many aspects of the Punic wars (as is the case for all of the history of antiquity). This is what I mean by the book being an academic treatment. Some readers will like this approach; others will feel that what they were expecting to be an exciting story of battles becomes dry history. Also as noted in the title of this review, this is a military history, as opposed to one that focuses on political, social, or religious aspects of the period being covered. This is not to say that these aspects are not considered, only that they are discussed in the context of the military conflict. (A great deal of information is provided about the political system and the politics of this period - information that is essential for understanding the military aspects of the war.) There are very good appendices that contains a description of the political system of the republic, the organization of a Roman Consular Army of the period, and a detailed chronology of events. While this is a military history it does not focus entirely on the fighting involved with the pivotal battles, such as Cannae. There is a 24-page chapter on Cannae, but it is devoted to much more than the battle itself. It covers the military and political events leading up to it and the extremely important consequences of the battle, but the battle itself is covered in only seven pages. There is one map that concerns Cannae, with a very small insert showing the initial disposition of forces. (There are a total of 16 clearly drawn maps in the book, but no photographs of ancient ruins, or artifacts. Likewise, there are also no drawings of soldiers in battle dress or alike.) You will learn much more that just about the fighting, but the treatment is less exciting that one that focuses on the battle itself. While the author makes pains to state that he is interested in the Punic Wars in their own right, as opposed to any contrast with modern conflicts, the last few pages of the book briefly compare these wars to WWI and WWII. The comparisons are striking, as are the lessons to be learned; pointing up the need to understand the lessons of history. I recommend this book to those who want to learn the lesson that these wars teach. However, it is not as exciting as some books about this period, but this in more than made up for with the wealth of information that is provided. I liked the honest admission of where the historical sources are lacking or contradictory. There is a clear analysis of the factors that brought on the wars, the factors that led to one side or the other being victorious in a given battle and why the Romans ultimately won, in spite of suffering horrendous losses. I would have given the book five stars were it not for its shrunk down size. I would have gladly paid a few dollars more to get a book that would last for a second or third reading.

Reading ancient Historians like Livy and Polybius is enlightening and fascinating for anyone who wants to get an understanding of how people saw the world in ancient times, but it can be slow going. Livy frequently goes into long discourses about prodigies that were seen at critical times and the religious rites that were undertaken to expiate them. Polybius goes off onto tangents about the deficiencies of rival historians. He characterizes one historian's work as, "little better than barbershop gossip." (Interesting that the barber shop in Polybius' day had somewhat the same social functions as in more modern times.) For those who have a serious interest in the Punic wars, but would prefer not to take the time and trouble to plow through the ancient sources, The Fall of Carthage, by Adrian Goldsworthy is an excellent alternative. Goldsworthy covers the entire history of all three Punic wars in considerable detail. Goldsworthy is strong on military history and his analysis of how the cultural differences between Rome and Carthage affect the eventual outcomes of the three wars is compelling. At the beginning of the Second Punic War, Rome lost four successive battles to Hannibal. With time and experience, however, the Roman military, both leaders and troops, improved steadily and dramatically. Goldsworthy explains it this way: "The Roman militia system produced armies which were far more homogenous in terms of language, command structure, drill and organization. This made it far easier to integrate legions from different commands into the same force. Prolonged services increased the effectiveness of a Roman army, but the process occurred far more readily than with a Punic force of mixed nationalities. The legions in the Second Punic War served far longer than any Roman troops before this date, so that by the latter stages of the war, many were as well-trained and confident as any professional soldiers. The tactical flexibility shown by the Romans at Metaurus, Ilipa and Zama was the tangible evidence of this. Both men and their officers were now capable of feats unimaginable in 218. Such armies were far superior to most Punic forces and could defeat significantly more numerous enemies, as Scipio was to demonstrate. As the war progressed, the disdain which the Romans had shown for all Carthaginian armies and commanders apart from Hannibal began to be based more and more on reality." The history of the Punic wars between Rome and Carthage is well worth knowing and Goldsworthy tells it well. There are a few minor errors in the book, for example, the ancient sources make it clear that Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus was the second son of Aemilius Paullus, not the fourth. He and his brother Quintus Fabius were the children of Paullus' first wife, Papiria Masonis, whom he divorced. Paullus had two sons by his second wife, both of whom died before reaching puberty at around the time of Paullus' triumph for defeating King Perseus of Macedonia in 167 B.C. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend this book to anyone desiring a strong background in the Punic wars.

I admire this author and enjoy reading his books, even when some of his arguments are basically built around a “Europe as the standard of the world” standpoint. Some discussions are extremely lengthy and refers back (without actually repeating) to previous arguments several times, which may be somewhat tiring. Even then the rich and well presented and written discussions are worthy a close reading. All in all I recommend this book and all of the author’s other books as well.

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.

The questions which Richard Gabriel’s Scipio Africanus: Rome’s Greatest General left me to ponder in July have now been answered; my vision of the Punic Wars, the states involved, and the setting of the world they inhabited expanded greatly from its formerly myopic state. The Punic Wars are fascinating; Hannibal and Scipio again captivating, and furthermore it was refreshing for this book to naturally shine its spotlight well beyond the fields of these two. I have no serious complaints with this work, and would recommend it well above the above-mentioned novel of the same topic, which was written by and for the military historian who so enjoys out loud logistical calculation and moment-by-moment battle tactics. I found Goldsworthy to deliver my preferred degree of detail, as well as possess a healthy sense of skepticism: he had a tendency to side with the facts of established histories if we could not disprove them in our cynical age. Perhaps my only grievance is this small one: that the author too often repeats how the persevering spirit of Rome, and its unique view of warfare in comparison to its Hellenistic neighbors, greatly contributed to its success. I was easily convinced of this early on, and was disappointed to hear it repeated needlessly thereafter, especially in a very brief, essay-like conclusion to the work. Here Goldsworthy elaborated to my satisfaction on the governmental operation of the Roman Republic, filling in the egregious blanks left over for me by Richard Gabriel’s work. For another, it explained the impetus as well as the consequences of the rapidly-expanding Roman empire.

Definitely a great read. Despite the fallacious pitch on the back "The cast of endlessly fascinating characters includes the generals Hannibal and Scipio, as well as treacherous chieftains, beautiful princesses, scheming politicians, and tough professional warriors.", a great and entertaining read. Almost reads like a novel, while still solidly argumented and avoiding the easy melodrama. Battles of the Antiquity are depicted in detail, consideing logistics and actual hand-to-hand fighting. Also an analysis that goes beyond the facts to understand social and political conditions. Sources are compared, decisions are dicussed, plausible explanations are proposed, but the author always manages not to appear as the pedant know-it-all but as a modern teacher who challenges the reader, and offers various reasons for enigmatic political or strategic decisions. A highly entertaining and intellectually refreshing read, thank you Mr Goldsworthy. I will investigate your other books.

Explained in solid detail, easy to understand, and stays on track with the subject matter. I highly recommend this book and the authors other works for anyone interested in Roman history.

This is a good pickup read detailing the 3 punic wars fought by Rome and Carthage in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. It has a lot of more history covering the 2nd punic war involving Hannibal and if you are interested in a detailed read on Hannibal's start in iberia, to crossing the alps and his famous battles in italy, and all the way to the battle of zama then this book is a good pickup. The added benefit of the 1st and third wars is icing on the cake.

Precise, informative, faszinating Especially the second war and Hannibal's campaigns are very interesting. Very helpful is the comparison of the political Systems of Rome and of Carthage. This explains why Rome finally prevailed. The Romans were simply more determined to win the war and to sacrifice everything to achieve this goal.

Gostei

Goldsworthy come al solito è bravo a tenere il giusto mezzo tra narrazione ed erudizione ed i suoi libri sono godibili. Consigliato.

Great Book explains how and why Carthage a mercantile empire fall to the more agreessive and militaristic Romans.