This book is another example of why Adrian Goldsworthy is my favorite historian.

Mr. Goldsworthy does a masterful job of providing just enough information regarding the necessary context to appreciate the causes, effects and long-term ramifications of each of the three Punic Wars. While an expert in military history, he does not get bogged down on the minutia of each battle. Instead, he provides succinct analyses of the sources to keep the narrative flowing in an understandable and interesting way.

As always, Goldsworthy avoids any ideology, and finds the perfect middle ground between naively relying on the ancient sources on the one hand and questioning essentially everything on the other.

A highly recommended book for both the novice and more informed. I consider this his second-best work beside his opus on Caesar. ( )

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.
( )

This first-rate historian addresses the biggest rival to Roman power in the Western Mediterranean. Although the author says this is more for a general audience it is sufficiently detailed to satisfy a trained historian; however, it is well written and clearly articulates for a general audience how critical the Punic wars were. The author explains the critical sources for the three wars and explains the organization, tactics, and operational activities of the Roman army during the period.

"The classical world witnessed many intensely dramatic events and was people with remarkable personalities, charismatic individuals whose careers were often both heroic and tragic. It is, in short, the source of many good stories which still bear retelling. Its influence, along with that Christianity, also did more than anything else to shape the culture of today ( p. 10)."

This book is a good introduction to the history of the Punic Wars. It's well-researched and is easy to read. The author did a good job of simplifying the narration of the events, so as to make the reader understand easily. The downside to this book however, is that it involves three wars, with so many events and so many characters that sometimes, the reader will have trouble catching up. I personally keep on flipping the pages, making sure that the author was referring to the same character or a different character with the same name. ( )

Adrain Goldsworthy has a talent for combining excellent scholarship with readability to provide, in this reviewers opinion, some the best history writing about the Ancient World.

His "Caesar, life of a Colossus" is a masterpiece and this book shows the same characteristics with a detailed account of the Punic Wars with valuable insight into the reasons for the eventual Roman triumph and Carthaginian defeat.

From the Carthaginian viewpoint it was a story of great successes with eventual failure and Goldsworthy shows in some detail how the years of Carthaginian campaigning in Spain forged the most experienced and capable army in the Ancient world. This was the army that Hannibal led across the Alps and used to inflict massive defeats on the Romans legions at Lake Trasimene and Cannae.

The account shows that in the context of ancient warfare, the Carthaginians could have reasonably expected the defeated Romans to come to terms and end the fighting but they didn't, and the reasons for this refusal form the fascinating explanatory core of the book.

Both armies incorporated allies but the Romans consistently received more loyalty, which Goldsworthy connects to the willingness of the Romans to extend citizenship and rights to defeated cities - an unheard of idea in the Ancient World - in return for providing soldiers. As an example, some citizens of defeated Campania were incorporated in the Roman élite and the Romans could consistently field larger armies.

The character if Roman government showed a high level of stability. I t consisted of the Consuls (two of them appointed for 1 year - a sort of temporary monarchy), the Senate (aristocracy) and the Popular Assembly (Democratic), which the Greek historian Polybius suggested was the natural condition of a civilized society, with each part balancing the power of the others. The senate was highly identified with the state, contributing their wealth to building armies and fleets (in contrast to the Carthaginian aristocracy) seeking to build respect and a reputation for virtus for their family through the generations. As the author says, "The Roman electorate knew what to expect from a Claudius or a Fabius....".

An equally interesting part of the book deals with the new Imperial Rome that grew out of the ruins of Carthage. Romans increasingly believed that success was their due simply because they were Romans, army training, discipline and leadership declined as the aristocracy faded with growing populism, out of control corruption and special interests taking over society with growing debt and currency debasement.

Rather like Imperial USA after 1945. ( )

This detailed history of the conflict between Rome and Carthage is very well written. Goldsworthy helps the reader keep all the battles and commanders straight, and the story is sweeping and dramatic. Favorite quote: "The Romans expected a war to end in total victory or their own annihilation." Hmmm. ( )

Good overview, though a bit too detailed on the military side of things for my taste. Begins with an intro section about the opposing sides, then gets into the three wars. I skimmed most of the First & Third, but the Second was good reading (though also with some skimming of paragraphs discussing numbers of troops, etc.) Good conclusion chapter to the Second war, and good overall conclusion chapter that really puts everything in perspective leading into the last century of the Republic (and includes an interesting comparison to Germany & Britain in the World Wars). Good time line with consuls and major events from each year.

You really get the idea that what made the Romans so unique was their absolute insistence on total victory (if not now, then later), partly as a function of their political system and partly simply a matter of state personality. Goldsworthy emphasizes that most states expected wars to end in one side giving in to a treaty. Rome would not do that (even after Cannae, although a possible "what if" is Hannibal marching immediately on Rome. But you get the impression that Rome would have refused to be subordinate and would simply have regrouped and fought again until they won.

You also realize that Rome was naturally imperialistic, but that these wars, as Goldsworthy says, accelerated that tendency, as well as leading to the eventual formation of a professional army and over-powerful generals. ( )

I've had enough of the word "whilst." I've never really read military history before. I'm teaching a Nepos unit (Hannibal) this term and wanted some solid basic knowledge of customs and routines, as well as specifics on battles and geography. This book has provided all of that. It's not as good as anything Anthony Everitt (Cicero, Augustus) has written, but not many out there are. ( )

3790. The Punic Wars, by Adrian Goldsworthy (read 27 Aug 2003) This is a straight historical account of the three Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, and I was surprised to find that it was not as interesting as I expected. I guess I like a little more dramatics infused into historical writing than Goldsworthy supplies. But I felt resonances between the attitude of Rome before and during the third Punic War and the role which today this administration imperialistically appears to seek in our world: nations better behave the way we want or we will make do so. ( )