Customer Reviews

Hannibal's War: A Military History of the Second Punic War

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

J. F. Lazenby, an English professor of Ancient History, has written the definitive academic interpretation of the Second Punic War between Rome and Carthage from 218 to 202 BC. The bulk of Lazenby's work is a synthesis of the two main ancient sources: the Greek Polybius who wrote about 50 years after the war and the Roman historian Livy who wrote his account about 200 years after the war. Several other ancient sources are also used, but the bulk of this history is an interpretation of Polybius and Livy by Lazenby.

While Hannibal is clearly the main focus, Lazenby admits that the brilliant Carthaginian general can only be analyzed in terms of his actions not his character, due to the paucity of primary sources. Lazenby clearly admires Hannibal and the reader is soon caught up in his admiration as well, following Hannibal's bold crossing of the Alps and stunning victories in Italy. However Lazenby believes that Hannibal's greatest achievement was his survival in Italy for nearly fifteen years, virtually cut off from Carthage. Scipio Africanus' rise is also well-documented, his bold campaign in Spain particularly stands out, but Lazenby places him second in skill to Hannibal. This is akin to placing Wellington behind Napoleon in generalship, despite Waterloo. Lazenby touches on the issue of whether or not Hannibal's entire strategy in Italy was flawed but then drops it without conclusion. For myself, I think Hannibal was a tactical genius but he was overly rigid in strategic outlook since he seemed unable to grasp that his strategy of winning over Rome's Italian allies was not producing decisive results. That he sat around in Italy for fifteen years doing little while the Romans overran Spain and Sicily seems to me that he failed to realize that Roman strategy had bypassed him. Unable to defeat Hannibal directly, Roman strategy simply became to defeat the Carthaginians wherever Hannibal was not.

Although the spotlight is on Hannibal, Lazenby views the Second Punic War as crucial to the evolution of the Roman Republic into a true empire. Prior to the war, Roman armies had rarely ventured outside Italy. By the end of the war in 202 BC, Roman armies had occupied parts of Spain, France, Albania, Greece and North Africa. The Roman army also grew immensely in size and experience, fielding over 250,000 troops by the end of the war. The war gave Rome both the incentive and the tools to establish a dominant hegemony over the Western Mediterranean littoral.

There are several interesting themes that Lazenby hammers home throughout the book. One is that Rome's victory was due to its superior ability to mobilize manpower. Although the Romans suffered numerous costly defeats at the hands of Hannibal, they always seemed to raise more legions to hem him into a corner in the boot of Italy. Carthage on the other hand, relied on professional mercenaries and had difficulty replacing large losses. This ties into a second related theme, which is that while Carthage might have had a well-led professional army, it did not have much of an empire or faithful allies. When Roman armies invaded Spain or North Africa, Carthage's allies melted away or deserted her. Finally, a third theme is the instrumental nature of Roman seapower in the final victory. Although there were no large naval battles, the Roman dominance of the sea was never seriously challenged by the Carthaginian fleet. Sea control gave strategic flexibility to Scipio but denied it to Hannibal.

Lazenby's account is the best synthesis available on the ancient sources. It has decent sketch maps that support the text well and there are modern photos of some of the battlefields. The only flaw is a tendency to digress on arcane disputes between Livy and Polybius when their respective accounts differ, which is distracting and should have been placed in endnotes.

Professor Lazenby's book is the modern standard on the subject of Hannibal's campaings during the Second Punic War. I highly recommed it with a few provisions.

First, you have to know more than a little about the Second Punic War and its participants to get the most out of this book. The author often refers to events and battles with the assumption that the reader knows what happened and what were the consequences. Prof. Lazenby goes into the appropriate detail into the key events - such as Hannibal's crossing of the Alps or the battle of Cannae - but he does not expound upon other participants or less critical events and their consequences. One such example is M. Claudius Marcellus. If I hadn't read Plutarch's Life of Marcellus, I would have thought he was just some ordinary Roman general, which he wasn't.

Second, the book reads well despite its lack of narrative. Much of the book tries to sort out between the two ancient sources, Polybius and Livy. Page after page follows the same format - Polybius said this, Livy said that, I (the author) think that so and so was right, etc. As I've said, the book still reads well despite its strong emphasis on research over narrative.

Finally, you need a set of good maps - or another book with excellent maps - to follow the action. Books such as "Hannibal's War" have not benefitted from modern publishing. Instead of clean and clear maps that might be in a book published in 1998, the publisher decided to in essence photocopy the original, grainy, crowded, eyesore maps from 1978 and stuck them in the back of the book. Overall, they're not much help. And in especially complex parts such as the Battle of Ilipa (map included in the back), you end up doing your own cross referencing to figure out exactly what happened.

In the end, this is a great book to augment your knowledge of the Second Punic War. I highly recommend it - I even enjoyed it, but I happen to enjoy dry, detailed books on Roman history.

J. F. Lazenby's "Hannibal's War" provides an in-depth look at Hannibal's struggle against Rome by carefully examining the writings of the ancient historians (Polybius and Livy) and attempting to reconcile their accounts. Lazenby also examines controversial issues (like Hannibal's crossing of the Alps) from all angles and looks for reasonable solutions. The level of research and work put into this book is extremely impressive, as witnessed by the extensive footnotes and bibliography.
My only concern is that it could use color photos and better maps, but overall the scholarship is extremely impressive. I highly recommend "Hannibal's War" for all Punic Wars enthusiasts, although readers who are new to the subject might consider reading Jacob Abbott's "Hannibal" or Harold Lamb's "Hannibal: One Man Against Rome" instead, which provide engaging narrative accounts of Hannibal's life.

This book is full of wisdom and insight regarding the war between Rome and Carthage, part 2. The author looks at the primary sources critically and attempts to draw out the probable scenarios of the major points of the war. Personally I thought he did a great job regarding that. He has many maps at the end of the book so you can find out where the major action is happening without any problems. Although I wouldn't recommend it for a complete novice (i.e. someone who doesn't know a thing about ancient Rome) I think it is an excellent introduction to the finer points of the Second Punic War for anyone else.

Hannibal Barca was indeed the boogeyman so profoundly - yet namelessly - expressed by Virgil, in his classic epic tale, the Aeneid. Hannibal personified the 'avenger' in the historicity, prophesied by Queen Dido in Virgil's pen - an apogee of failed retribution against the Fatherland.

John Francis Lazenby's book is a veritable exegesis, if you will, on the primary accounts of Polybius and Livy, and, IMHO, convincingly reflects Hannibal as one of the greatest figures of military history. The famous struggle he triggered against the Roman Republic was indeed an illuminating display of collective genius overcoming individual genius. It's a fantastic read, as all of Lazenby's works are, which include the great events of the western ancient world - the Graeco-Persian Wars, the Peloponnesian War, the First Punic War, and of course, the Second Punic War, or the War With Hannibal. Lazenby's style is very inspiring: he tells us exactly where, moment-by-moment throughout his treatise, where and how he drew his varied analyses - all in their respective contexts! He's a sublimely elucidating professor of ancient history.

After reading a series of books all to do with this conflict I was very impressed with Lazenby's book, and in particular, his respect and treatment of lots of sources - he puts some very good thoughts into this - especially in regards to the parts which need some read in-between-the-lines, and has looked at a wide range of sources to try and get an overall picture of the war.

The best secondary book I've read on the war, and sums up both Hannibal and Scipio's generalship, in my opinion, very accurately, and the whole war very well! Highly recommend this one, it's great!

There are endnotes, but not so much that it disturbs the reading! Anyhow, 5 stars.

Lazenby is another one of those tiresome apoligists for Hannibal "the loser" - why do they (i.e. the Lazenby's with a "pen" in their hands) try so hard to find reasons - denying history and fact - as why Hannibal lost, not just the 2nd Punic War, but his entire culture! Hannibal was defeated by Scipio because: 1) Scipio was his intellectual superior; 2) Scipio was his miltary superior; 3) Scipio was his moral superior; and 4) Scipio was a citizen of a country that he, Scipio, actually loved and was dedicated to. Hannibal was a lost soul, without a country, without morals, without a vision of world, and those who admire him are as lost and visionless as the greatest loser of all times!

The book is full of historical errors - many are glaring and so obvious - does anyone review this nonsense?

R Asaro