The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC Kindle Edition

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.

Disclaimer: I am not a historian. However, I do read about 30 history books a year, so I might be what you call a history nerd.

I found the book completely adequate in explaining the Punic wars. He told me everything that I desired to know and then some. I can now say that I have a grasp on what they were all about and why they are important in the history of the world.

I did find the book to be a little too academic. Maybe a little dry. Unless you are really into this sort of thing, I might recommend something a little more simple.

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.

Very thorough, well written and also explains exactly which sources say what for the parts that are not exactly clear. The description on ancient tactics - especially naval tactics - are eye opening. The analysis of Roman and Punic politics draw logical conclusions to the events that occurred. Not a light read, but overall a detailed narrative of one of my favorite historical events.

I have a thorough background in the history surrounding the mid-Republic era of Ancient Rome, so that may be why I found this book to be tedious. If you want detailed accounts (play-by-plays) of the military actions of the Punic Wars then this is a good book for that. However, I feel that this book lacks the ability to show the broader picture and address many of the larger plots that were going on during the time period. The histories for this period (Polybius, Livy, etc.) offer such great accounts (though not all true) that it's almost a shame not to give them their due credit. Simply put: be aware of what you're getting into with this title. It's quite good, but rather dry and tedious.