Customer Reviews

Scipio Africanus: The Man Who Defeated Hannibal

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

Ross Leckie has written a Roman historical novel in the tradition of Robert Graves. Although he does not quite reach the overall level of "I, Claudius", "Claudius, the God" or "Bellisarius," the work is definitely quite good. Like Graves, he brings ancient Rome to life. Like Graves, he deals with Rome's political intrigues, but, perhaps because the politics of Scipio's day were less complicated than those of Claudius', the political element is less satisfying. On the other hand, Leckie's descriptions of battles and tactics outdo anything in Graves. It does have flaws, however. The first lies in the early part of the book, where Leckie moves back and forth between Scipio's account of his childhood and Bostar's account of his travels in Italy after Hannibal. The problem is that each section is too short. Often he goes on for only a few paragraph on Bostar (for example) before jumping back to Scipio for a few paragraphs. This may work well in an action novel moving toward a climax, but here it is jarring and confusing. Another drawback is that the reader never knows exactly what Bostar's relationship with Hannibal was. Still, all in all, it's worth the price and the time to read, and I learned a lot about a different period in Roman history.

"Scipio Africanus: The Man Who Defeated Hannibal" by Ross Leckie is an interesting account of what may have happened with the Roman leader before and after he defeated Hannibal. If you like the show "Rome", you'd definitely like this book. The descriptions of the roman legions, the senate, the Latin, the ancient lusts for gold, glory and power, it's all well packaged and would make you reminisce about those ancient times and what it might have been like... In the beginning of the book parallel narratives of both Scipio and Bostar (his servant) amuse and hasten the pace of the story. Then slowly the book sinks into one of those `I did this, he said that, we attacked him, they got killed...' type of an account and interest meanders a bit. However, the narrative is easy enough and does captures the attention, at times even excites the imagination. But after all, like most sequels, this one doesn't live up to the glory of `Hannibal'. If you are a fan of good ancient action novels, pick up a copy of "Hannibal". If you've already read it and just feel like figuring out what went on with Scipio pre/post Hannibal's defeat, then this novel can be an 'okay' continuation of your trip.

-by Simon Cleveland

Even worse than Hannibal, if you can believe. Where to begin... Scipio's mother did not die in childbirth of Scipio's brother Lucius (she'd have had a damned hard time making togas for the pair 20 years on if she had). Lucius did not commit suicide and Scipio hear of it, Lucius announced Scipio's death in the Senate at his trial. Can a man who was "known by his troops to have a fondness for beautiful women" and who committed adultery with his serving maid be gay? Or in denial of his gayness? Bloody unlikely.So many historical innacuracies,so little fact. Mr Leckie's artistic license should be revoked. Doesn't cover historical events until Pg 280 and then at such a speed any sense of accomplishment is lost. Tosh of the first order, avoid if a serious scholar of history, along with the prequel Hannibal.Can I give it less than one star please?

Nice to see this period of history isn't lost to modern students. Potential readers take heed of the majority view below. It's hard to believe Leckie has considered the sources with any degree of fairness so biased is this account. To say this book is about the eponymous character there is precious little that gives any insight into the man's character in this book. A more rounded view of the man is given in Polybius. As to his military exploits, arguably the most important part of Scipio's career, where are they in this book ? Nova Carthago, one of history's boldest swoops is gone in a blink of the eye. Ilipa, Baecula, the firing of the camps, the defense of Utica - where are they ? All of Scipio's charisma, evident even in the dry histories of Livy and Polybius, is missing from this leaden piece. And the reader wouldn't know of Scipio's army reformations, retraining and re-equipping from perusing this either. And I'm bored with tired old saw used time and again that "Scipio learned his trade from Hannibal". Show me Hannibal's Nova Carthago and I'll concede you have a point, until then, keep your assumptions to yourself. Here's another old saw - "When you assume you......." And Leckie is one.

Having read Hannibal, I was extremely keen to see what went into the sequel. I have to say that the first third or so of Scipio is very good. His chatacterisation of Hannibal was excellent, and that of Scipio arguably even better. The use of Bostar as narrator serves very admirably to provide continuity with Hannibal. Having said that, the novel starts to trail off after Scipio's early military experiences. It's not Leckie's historical accuracy that bothers me - it isn't spot on to say the least but then neither is Graves in I, Claudius so you can't hold that against him. The problem seems to be that Leckie is so keen to make this novel different from Hannibal (rather than just portray the same events from the other side's viewpoint)that he skates over the campaigns in Spain and that leading up to Zama with startling diregard. I felt a little cheated by this, I have to say. Leckie is of the "Scipio was Hannibal's greatest pupil" school which is all very well but firstly some of us don't agree with that and secondly, those who are less familiar with the period should be allowed to draw their own conclusions - this novel won't give them that chance. Leckie's characterisations are terrifc though - including that of the supporting cast; I loved Fabius and was pleased to see an author portray Cato as the ill-mannered, puritanical oaf he undoubtedly was. If you liked Hannibal then read this, just be aware that it doesn't maintain the standard of the first section.

I bought this in the belief it was a fantasy novel since it was near that section in my bookstore. However I soon learned it was a historical novel along the lines of Colleen Mcculloughs "First Man In Rome" so I though I'd try it out. Unfortunately, it's a fairly disjointed and altogether pointless book. What's it supposed to be about? I could not figure it out. It doesn't read as well as Colleen Mcculoughs books and doesn't seem to be half as well researched. Adn for a book about a soldier the battle scenes are pathetic. I cannot imagine what the author was trying to write. Autobiography ? Action war novel ? Philosophical tract? It's all of these and none as far as I am concerned.

It should be patently obvious to anyone reading this book that the author has a major chip on his shoulder about the fact that Hannibal was defeated by the Roman general Scipio. And if you've read anything about this period of histroy you will realise that this book, far from being a biography as it purports, is a poorly-dressed up character assassination of Scipio in an attempt to rewrite history. The author creates spurious stories about Scipio's personal life which, if the subject were alive today, would have him lining up a good lawsuit for defamation of character. Or, actually knowing Scipio's character I'm sure he would shrug off this petty name-calling just as he shrugged off his persecutor's in the Senate. There is very little history in this book and it only starts to overlap properly with recorded events round about page 280 by which time the author struggles miserably to record any of Scipio's numerous achievements, probably deliberately being a Hannibalite, and leaves the reader with the impression Scipio didn't do much of anything. He certainly gives Scipio no credit for any of his military innovations saying only he had the idea from Hannibal. Liddel-Hart in his book gives this idea the short shrift it deserves. All in all this is a very poor book. The continual jumps between Scipio and his "servant" don't do anything for the continuity of the work. It does not "brilliantly evoke" the period it describes, grief, Polybius' history itself reads far better than this. Stick to Scullard for a proper assessment of the man's career. Read Lidell-Hart if , as I am, you're sick to the back teeth of Hannibal's apologists denigrating Scipio. What next Leckie ? Hannibal had a bad hair day at Zama-Naragarra ?

What is this book supposed to be? Historical? Not only is Leckie's portrayal of the period and the characters doubtful, to put it mildly - but he consistently (and almost on purpose, it would appear) distorts historical fact. And I am convinced Mr Leckie knows the facts of the matter - no one who has not read Polybius or Livy could write so consistently incorrect rubbish.

If you're looking to gain some knowledge about Rome and the roman mindset - forget this book - you won't get it from here. A children's book on the roman empire contains more historical fact than Mr. Leckie's books.

Add that to the pretty horrible writing, and you definitely have a book to stay away from.

PLEASE - Can't I give less than 1 Star?

Do not buy or borrow this book if you are generally familiar with the Second Punic War and are looking for a historical novel. Ross Leckie blatantly ignores history, whenever he doesn't twist it into a pretzel for God knows what purpose. More pages are devoted to Scipio's "confused sexuality" than to his battles(which are the reason why we generally remember him). His fondness of the Greek ways is no more than hinted. The political life of Scipio is barely mentioned. His incredible charisma is not portrayed, except in the vaguest of terms. It might come as a surprise to those who have read only the book, that Scipio was happily married, had four children, was deeply religious and was a son-in-law to Aemilius Paullus, the Roman consul who died at Cannae.
Seriously, if the author had just novelised the depiction of Scipio's life and his achievements from the works of Polybius and Livius, his "historical" novel would be much more palatable.
A word about the narrative: This reviewer wonders why on Earth did the author decide to split and intermix the two stories - of Scipio and Bostar. The result was difficult to follow, annoying and this reader on more than one occasion found himself jumping back and forth between passages to follow the story.
All in all, three points for desire and ambition and minus four hundred for lack of historic research, twisting and omitting of facts.
In conclusion, this book might be entertaining for readers who have no knowledge of the Second Punic War. For those who actually are looking for a historical novel and know more than the minimum about Scipio Africanus, stay away, for your nerves' sake.

I'm atonished by the reviews posted here so far. I found this reading interesting, refreshing and colorful. The way the story is narrated suceeds in catching the attention. Of course that the ones who have read Titus Livivs or Polibivs before, have noticed that this novel is historically inaccurate. But i'm sure those same ones would have never expected it to be a history manual, am I right? This is a historical novel, a fictional work based on some historical facts. It is an artistic and unrealistic representation of scipio, not a biography. It has been altered on purpose by the author to add some drama and suspense. Of course Sempronius did not die crucified at Trebia. Mago did not die at Hispania. Again, if you want to read history, take a history book. But if you want to engage into literature as an art, for me this is a decent effort.