Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.02 AVERAGE
4.02 AVERAGE
adventurous
informative
medium-paced
The best book, fiction or non-fiction, about the Punic Wars.
adventurous
informative
medium-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Goldsworthy wisely uses the Osprey technique of reviewing the opposing forces before he tackles the narrative of the Punic Wars. The First war and its unresolved consequences gets adequate coverage. The Second war inevitably forms the bulk, which is not a bad thing; the bibliography caters to the needs of every other focus of interest. Hannibal disappears into the background a year after Cannae, tough. The Third war comes off as a bit rushed.
Goldsworthy switches perspectives effortlessly. He can place you in the heat of battle one moment & show how the events in Sicily, Spain & Italy interact the next. He does a fine job of offering different plausible theses where the ancient sources stay silent. Unfortunately, sometimes our knowledge is simply too sketchy; he admits as much regarding the Carthaginian side of the story. The book could've used more maps ànd a synopsis of the discussion on Hannibal's route through the Alps. Too many authors skip it.
Goldsworthy switches perspectives effortlessly. He can place you in the heat of battle one moment & show how the events in Sicily, Spain & Italy interact the next. He does a fine job of offering different plausible theses where the ancient sources stay silent. Unfortunately, sometimes our knowledge is simply too sketchy; he admits as much regarding the Carthaginian side of the story. The book could've used more maps ànd a synopsis of the discussion on Hannibal's route through the Alps. Too many authors skip it.
Goldsworthy offers one of the best accounts ever written of the wars that truly shaped the history of the entire globe.
A well written book about something I knew nothing about.
I say this with every Goldsworthy book (I looked at previous reviews), but goddamn is his writing complicated. Since I'm not a visual person, Goldsworthy's descriptions did little but confuse me, but they may be useful for people who can visualize what Goldsworthy is describing. (Also, people who know more about ships because I didn't understand half of what was described about the ships.)
Overall, the information in this is very comprehensive, especially when it comes to the First and Second Punic wars. It's always interesting to me to see what take an author has on Hannibal Barca because they all have them and it's a pretty reliable gauge of how they feel about the mid- to late Republic. In this, Goldsworthy seems to admire Hannibal's individual genius, but he comes heavily down on the side of the Republic and Scipio Africanus, doing everything he can to minimize his fumbling in the Senate after Zama.
I honestly can't remember if Goldsworthy made mention of the Punic habit of human sacrifice, but I feel like he must have because it is inevitably included in books like this as a sort of talisman to indicate how strange and bad the people of Carthage were. To be fair to Goldsworthy, he is upfront about our general lack of sources about Punic life and culture, especially unbiased sources, and he doesn't harp on the human sacrifice thing the way some authors have in the past. (I'm not saying human sacrifice is good because it's obviously not, but I find it interesting that it's inevitably trotted out in every explanation of the Punic Wars in a vain attempt to make Carthage into the Other and Rome into a savior.)
Overall, serviceable if a bit scholarly for a popular history. You need a bit of skill in visualization to get the most of out Goldsworthy's descriptions of the battles especially.
Overall, the information in this is very comprehensive, especially when it comes to the First and Second Punic wars. It's always interesting to me to see what take an author has on Hannibal Barca because they all have them and it's a pretty reliable gauge of how they feel about the mid- to late Republic. In this, Goldsworthy seems to admire Hannibal's individual genius, but he comes heavily down on the side of the Republic and Scipio Africanus, doing everything he can to minimize his fumbling in the Senate after Zama.
I honestly can't remember if Goldsworthy made mention of the Punic habit of human sacrifice, but I feel like he must have because it is inevitably included in books like this as a sort of talisman to indicate how strange and bad the people of Carthage were. To be fair to Goldsworthy, he is upfront about our general lack of sources about Punic life and culture, especially unbiased sources, and he doesn't harp on the human sacrifice thing the way some authors have in the past. (I'm not saying human sacrifice is good because it's obviously not, but I find it interesting that it's inevitably trotted out in every explanation of the Punic Wars in a vain attempt to make Carthage into the Other and Rome into a savior.)
Overall, serviceable if a bit scholarly for a popular history. You need a bit of skill in visualization to get the most of out Goldsworthy's descriptions of the battles especially.
adventurous
informative
reflective
fast-paced
There’s not too much more I could ask for from Adrian Goldsworthy’s The Fall of Carthage. The book is pitched just right, at a level of great engagement with history for public consumption – thorough enough to be professional and offer an academically rigorous deconstruction of the Punic Wars, but also accessible enough for newcomers to understand, with Goldsworthy taking the time to clearly explain key concepts about how warfare and politics was conducted by both sides at this time. He additionally delves into an area that far too many popular histories don’t, confining themselves to straight up narratives of what happened: assessment of the sources. Goldsworthy doesn’t just tell us what happened, he tells us what the evidence is for it happening, and encourages us to critique the sources’ reliability in order to assess how plausible or improbable different versions are. This is so important. Whenever I come to a new area of history that I’m not familiar with, I’m looking for a good introduction that includes grilling the sources, otherwise I’m left with a good deal of uncertainty as to whether this or that really happened because two different authors in two different books will flat out tell me contradictory versions without explaining how and why they interpreted the evidence in that manner. It’s surprising how many popular histories leave this out because they feel that catering to the general public means their audience will be incapable of comprehending these difficulties and all they really want is to be told a straightforward story.
True, this book could be more detailed and denser. You probably won’t find anything new here if you’re already extremely familiar with the Punic Wars. Partially because Goldsworthy does make judicious choices to simplify for his readership, and partially because in his choice to cover all three wars, Goldsworthy seeks to create overarching context rather than intense debate. Conversely, those unfamiliar with history non-fiction may find the book a little on the dry side, since the author focuses more on strategy and tactics, explaining context, and reviewing sources than he does on grand charismatic personalities. You won’t be swept away by Hannibal’s charisma and genius in this book. But, for me, it mixes the right amount of academic professionalism with general accessibility, and that made it a good read.
7 out of 10