The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146BC (Cassell Military Paperbacks)

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.

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:

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

El libro es conciso y directo, no se va por temas innecesarios y explica con los detalles necesarios cada capítulo en las 3 guerras. Para nada es un trabajo académico sino uno para llegar al gran público y lo logra pues muestra con sobriedad todos los acontecimientos.El inglés usado no es muy técnico y con cierta práctica puede leerse casi sin ayuda de diccionario si estás versado en el idioma; pero el hecho es que está en inglés y debe ser uno conciente de ello.

As per usual, Adrian Goldsworthy does a great job in closely covering the history of the ancient world. I learned a ton from this book and I'll be sure to keep it on my shelf, as I expect I'll read it again in a few years. Highly recommended.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It is informative and detailed, and the author does not fall into the common trap of over-dramatizing or assigning his own emotions on the historic characters. This does take some concentration to read, especially the initial parts, if one is not familiar with the terms describing Roman warfare. But the small effort required is worth it, and I would recommend this book to anyone, not just those interested in ancient warfare, military strategies, or Rome.

Este libro tiene una letra ridículamente pequeña y un espacio mínimo entre líneas en su versión de tapa blanda, lo que lo hace prácticamente ilegible. Debería haber algún tipo de legislación que advierta del tipo y tamaño de letra que se emplea en una publicación para que el lector esté prevenido, y preferentemente, prohibir este tipo de edición por cuestiones de salud ocular.