Scan barcode
sleepyboi2988's review
5.0
Typical Goldsworthy. Which means it was well researched, easy to read, informative, and excellent all around.
2ndchance_chad's review
4.0
This one took me a bit longer to work my way through but that doesn't mean I enjoyed it any less. Most of my interest and reading prior to this has been focused more on WWII and newer. This book was put together well covering the various Punic Wars. I really enjoyed the last couple of chapters kind of wrapping things up and showing a bit of comparison of later wars. Over all this was an enjoyable and informative book covering this time period and some of the military leaders from the time.
spacestationtrustfund's review
3.0
This is a portrait of the military history and strategy employed, which stands as a lens through which we can infer the character of the actual people. It's very dense. Adrian Goldsworthy and I have an incredibly complicated relationship (he—thankfully!—doesn't know I exist; odi et amo). Now, Goldsworthy is an historian with a specific focus on military history, so if that's not your thing, you should probably give this book a pass.
sherpawhale's review against another edition
4.0
Very strong rendition of military history. Excellent subsection of Roman history to read about.
pezski's review against another edition
2.0
I had the urge to learn more about Carthage and its enmity with rome and, as a couple of people had recommended Adrian Goldsworthy to me, thought this would be a good place to start. I have to say that I was disappointed.
Goldsworthy says in the preface that he is a military historian, and it is largely this focus that failed for me; the author focuses on the battles themselves and, within them, on the minutiae of tactics and technologies that made the opposing sides feel like miniatures on a gameboard. I got no real sense of the generals involved - although he does mention them and their supposed attributes this is not done in a way that brings them to life at all. I read thoroughly through the introduction and the first section about the combatants, and then on into the chapters on the First Punic War, hoping that this was leading to more analysis and depth, but soon I found that my eyes were glazing and I was skim-reading, forcing myself to remain interested.
It is not that the history of a conflict cannot be written interestingly, giving a thorough idea of the way the battles themselves were fought whilst bringing to life the cultures, and even the characters, involved - take, for instance, [b:Persian Fire|103749|Persian Fire The First World Empire and the Battle for the West|Tom Holland|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1171501730s/103749.jpg|100036], about the attempted invasion of the Greek peninsula by mighty Persia, including the battles of Thermopylae and Marathon. And, perhaps, this is the main difference; I didn’t think Goldsworthy a very good writer. Aside from being peppered with dry academicisms (“In this chapter we shall see…”) the writing itself is often clumsy (the word “began” used three times in two consecutive sentences) and, I’m afraid, just not engaging. The big disappointment, though, is that I was left feeling I learnt little about the cultures fighting this conflict which would set one up to be amongst the greatest powers the world has ever seen and utterly destroy the other.
Goldsworthy says in the preface that he is a military historian, and it is largely this focus that failed for me; the author focuses on the battles themselves and, within them, on the minutiae of tactics and technologies that made the opposing sides feel like miniatures on a gameboard. I got no real sense of the generals involved - although he does mention them and their supposed attributes this is not done in a way that brings them to life at all. I read thoroughly through the introduction and the first section about the combatants, and then on into the chapters on the First Punic War, hoping that this was leading to more analysis and depth, but soon I found that my eyes were glazing and I was skim-reading, forcing myself to remain interested.
It is not that the history of a conflict cannot be written interestingly, giving a thorough idea of the way the battles themselves were fought whilst bringing to life the cultures, and even the characters, involved - take, for instance, [b:Persian Fire|103749|Persian Fire The First World Empire and the Battle for the West|Tom Holland|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1171501730s/103749.jpg|100036], about the attempted invasion of the Greek peninsula by mighty Persia, including the battles of Thermopylae and Marathon. And, perhaps, this is the main difference; I didn’t think Goldsworthy a very good writer. Aside from being peppered with dry academicisms (“In this chapter we shall see…”) the writing itself is often clumsy (the word “began” used three times in two consecutive sentences) and, I’m afraid, just not engaging. The big disappointment, though, is that I was left feeling I learnt little about the cultures fighting this conflict which would set one up to be amongst the greatest powers the world has ever seen and utterly destroy the other.
cancermoononhigh's review against another edition
3.0
This book was very insightful on the Punic Wars, the early beginnings of Roman Society and the fall of Carthage.
Warfare is affected as much by culture as any other human pursuit. The Romans mixed a military career and that of a politician. Men were elected into politics by their achievements, or that of their families. The Romans believed that characteristics and ability were family genes - if a man's father was successful on the battlefield there was ever reason to believe the son would be successful too.
The Romans produced armies that were homogeneous in terms of language, command structure, drill and organization. The army was blessed by veterans during the wars. The Roman Army encouraged aggression in all levels of rank. If a unit failed badly or fled without putting up a fight, one in 10 men in that unit would be beaten to death.
The only means that the Romans could confirm the loyalty of their allies was to have constant war. The Carthaginians' never challenged any of their allies loyalty, either during the wars or during the peace time.
The Carthaginians' had a different view on war - specifically on how war should end, with a peace treaty. They were less determined on warfare and expected a peace treaty to renegotiate power among the states. Their approach to land and sea warfare was less aggressive than the Romans, a constant theme in all 3 wars. The Carthaginians' naval fleet was superior to the Romans, but they failed to make much use of that.
This was my first introduction to war elephants, mainly African Forest Elephants. The elephants were the main weapons, using their bulk and strength to scare their opponents. Elephants weren't exactly sturdy animals, they were caused to panic and could trample friendly troops.
The fighting was brutal between the two armies., with many of it being hand to hand combat to the death.
Warfare is affected as much by culture as any other human pursuit. The Romans mixed a military career and that of a politician. Men were elected into politics by their achievements, or that of their families. The Romans believed that characteristics and ability were family genes - if a man's father was successful on the battlefield there was ever reason to believe the son would be successful too.
The Romans produced armies that were homogeneous in terms of language, command structure, drill and organization. The army was blessed by veterans during the wars. The Roman Army encouraged aggression in all levels of rank. If a unit failed badly or fled without putting up a fight, one in 10 men in that unit would be beaten to death.
The only means that the Romans could confirm the loyalty of their allies was to have constant war. The Carthaginians' never challenged any of their allies loyalty, either during the wars or during the peace time.
The Carthaginians' had a different view on war - specifically on how war should end, with a peace treaty. They were less determined on warfare and expected a peace treaty to renegotiate power among the states. Their approach to land and sea warfare was less aggressive than the Romans, a constant theme in all 3 wars. The Carthaginians' naval fleet was superior to the Romans, but they failed to make much use of that.
This was my first introduction to war elephants, mainly African Forest Elephants. The elephants were the main weapons, using their bulk and strength to scare their opponents. Elephants weren't exactly sturdy animals, they were caused to panic and could trample friendly troops.
The fighting was brutal between the two armies., with many of it being hand to hand combat to the death.
auspea's review against another edition
4.0
Adrian Goldsworthy always satisfies. This is a highly enjoyable and easy to read examination of a period of ancient history that is not widely known to my generation.