Customer Reviews

The Punic Wars: Rome, Carthage, and the Struggle for the Mediterranean

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

 

 

This book by Nigel Bagnall, a Field Marshal in the British Army, is one of the best books I have ever read covering Ancient military history. This book introduced me to the lifes and times of such great leaders as Hamilcar Barca, Hannibal and Scipio Africanus to name a few. The author presents a well researched account of the military struggle between Rome and Carthage and does it so well that the book is a joy to read. The book covers the First Punic War, 264-242 BC, the period between the wars (241 - 218 BC), the Second Punic War, 218 - 201 BC and the third and final Punic War between 149 - 148 BC which saw the destruction of Carthage as a power and as a city! A great book!!!!

~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.

This book was the first of two works by Sir Nigel Bagnall, who had been a field marshal in the British Army to which this book is dedicated. I had reviewed his later work, The Peloponnesian War: Athens, Sparta, and the Struggle for Greece, a short time ago. I was not a big fan of the other piece of history that this writer produced but I really liked this book. The Punic Wars is an incredible tale of two great civilizations that went on a collision course against each other that would result with one becoming a world power and the other completely annihilated. When writing about each of the three wars Bagnall focuses on one theater at a time, telling each theater's story rather than proceeding in complete chronological order. This helps the book flow better and does not harm the general narrative.

Bagnall starts of by giving the reader a bit of background of the two major civilizations; we know more about the Romans of course because they were not destroyed as thoroughly as they destroyed Carthage. He traces the rise of the two cities from mere cities to the heart of minor empires in the Mediterranean, one a land power and the other a sea power. Both cities have to adapt when they fought each other in the First Punic War. Rome would create a navy that would overtake Carthage, and Carthage would also learn how to use its natural military advantages such as trained elephants and a diverse Mercenary army composed of its subject peoples.

The Second Punic War focuses on the great general, Hannibal Barca. His training under his father, Hamilcar, and his rise in Spain are covered. Hannibal crosses the Alps and, for years, ravages Italy and nearly destroys Rome. The famous Fabius Maximus creates what is known as the `Fabian Strategy` in order to defend against Hanibal, that is do not fight him directly only indirectly by cutting supply lines and forms of harassment. The book covers how Rome had a hard time sticking to this strategy until the rise of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus who would ultimately beat Hannibal.

"On taking up his appointment, Scipio faced the task of welding a disparate lot into a cohesive fighting force: there were the dispirited survivors of the defeated legions, the raw reinforcements fresh out of Italy, and Spanish mercenaries of uncertain loyalty. No light task for a young man, especially one whose close relation had so intimately associated with disasters. But Publius Cornelius Scipio (later given the cognomen Africanus) was remarkable. As Polybius says, he was `perhaps the most illustrious man of any born before the present generation', and one of his first acts was to show his trust in Marcellus, the man who had striven so hard to rally the survivors of the two Scipios' shattered army, but who could now well be regarded as an awkward rival." p.206

The Third Punic War would be the end of mighty Carthage. The city would be defeated, raised, and destroyed by Scipio's grandson. The impact of Carthage, fulfilling the dream of Cato the Elder, would be erased even though another one of Scipio's own grandsons would try to argue against it.

"He pleaded that though Rome's position as the dominant power should be preserved, Carthage should not be destroyed as a rival. Were this to occur, there would be no check on Rome's arrogant disregard for the legitimate interests and the concerns of smaller states. She would lose all sense of shame when there was nobody of stature to pass judgment on her conduct and stand up for the rights of others. Moreover, in the absence of any external threat, the Roman Confederation would be in danger of disintegrating as fractious political and social groups pursued their own self-interested ends." p.307

I highly recommend this book to anyone. It is a thrilling read involving one of the greatest struggles in the history of the world: Rome and Carthage. Not until the Cold War would the world see another quite like it. This work of Nigel Bagnall was much stronger than his later work on the Peloponnesian War; however I leave open the possibility that the reason for his Punic Wars being easier to understand maybe due to the fact the the Punic Wars are an easier conflict to understand compared to the Peloponnesian War.

One of the few enjoiable books that approach historical events under a technical perspective, in this case, analyzing the military strategies and tactics. Contrary of what one's could expect from this kind of approach, this book shows all the aspect of the society of Rome and Cartage at that time. The author in fact, takes in consideration and describes all the social factors that influences the military thinking of the great generals and the moral of the soldiers in the battlefields, which go from political to religious and superstitions. We have a feeling of what everyday life could have been at that time, which I think is one of the highest achievements an historical book could reach. The political events, the negotiations between the two opponents, and the various strategies are described and analyzed with a modern mind, which also helps to take off from those pages all the scholastic and academic feeling that we are used to deal with, when we explore our history. A wonderful book, enjoyable in the reading, yet detailed and sharp.

I had the pleasure of finishing this book sitting on the edge of a statue, overlooking the Circus Maximus in Rome last August, and the location only enhanced the experience of the book. Nigel Bagnall's excellent history of the Punic Wars gives, not only an insight into the growth of the Roman Empire, but also the transition of the land-based, city power of the Romans into the military power that would dominated the Meditteranean, Northern Europe and the Near East directly for five hundred years, but with echoes that continue today. The Punic Wars were where it all started.

We are shown where the failings were in the tri-partite 'constitution' (only a theoretical idea, there was no formal constitution) in the governing of an Empire and, although we don't reach him, the shadow of Marius, and the reforms he will introduce that lead (almost) directly to the fall of the Republic, is felt as we approach the destruction of Carthage. The individual power of the Scipios is a forewarning of what may happen when there are no 'Cato the Censor's (his ancestor who faced Caesar was a mere shadow of the man who 'defeated' Scipio Africanus).

Overall, a thoroughly recommended book.

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.

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.

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.

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!