Greater than Napoleon, Scipio Africanus

[Goffredo]

I just finished reading during my latest usual 5 hour train ride the book by B. H. Liddell Hart<br>
"Greater than Napoleon, Scipio Africanus".<br>
The book dates from 1926 and it is odd to read about few episodes and names of generals of the recent WWI, but I had great fun. Has anyone else read it? How is it considered in the academic world? After finishing it I tend to think that Scipio was truely a fantastic person! But as the book dates 1926 I wonder why the thesis, if upheld by historians and military historians, didn't spread to the larger public. As children we all heard of Hannibal but Scipio seems to get only an indirect light. Even if the book is outdated and the case over stated I still enjoyed it.<br>
Ciao <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 5/30/01 3:00:21 pm<br></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Lidell Hart and Fuller, both advocates of mobile warfare, have written several historical studies, which have come under criticism from ancient historians as they seem to have used these works for the express end of propagating their theories on modern warfare. They picked out generals which fitted their concepts, those laying emphasis on manoeuvre like Alexander the Great and Scipio Africanus, with the aim of winning converts to the cause of armoured mobility. By pointing to historical precedents they sought to add more support to the new views on how wars needed to be fought. Their selective use of source material and occasional lack of direct references have been pointed out and their work should be used with care. This should by no means be taken to imply that they should not be read, just that one has to be a bit more cautious than usual.<br>
<br>
It was not just the genius of a single general that made the Roman victories possible. The fact that the troops in the Second Punic War were kept under arms for several years and could be trained to a higher level than was common in the militia force that the annually constituted legions of the republic generally were contributed much to the use of new tactics. With hastily assembled levies trained on their way to the war there were limited possibilities for complex battle manoeuvring. These skills were gradually lost when the veterans of the Second Punic and Macedonian Wars were no longer present in the ranks and had to be relearned when Roman troops and commanders began to consider battlefield success as their birth right, not as a result of hard training. You could read Goldsworthy's book on the Punic wars for more detailed comments on the continually varying quality of the republican Roman army.<br>
<br>
Titles<br>
<br>
Fuller, J.F.C., <i> Julius Caesar: man, soldier & tyrant</i> (London 1965) 336p.<br>
Fuller, J.F.C., <i> The generalship ofAlexander the Great</i> (London 1958) 319p.<br>
<br>
Reprinted a few years ago in an easily affordable edition. The Roman use of field fortifications (the camp) is seen as precursor to the trenches and part of a defensive outlook on warfare and therefore a bad idea. Alexander used mobile striking forces (armoured horseman compared to tank) and is thus clearly Fuller's favourite.<br>
<br>
Goldsworthy, A., <i> The Punic wars</i> (London 200) 412p.<br>
<br>
This author comes highly recommended. His <i> Roman army at war</i> is one of the finest books on the Roman army published and anything by him is wortwhile to read as is this study.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 5/30/01 3:56:45 pm<br></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

Just finished reading Goldsworthy's Punic Wars. It's an excellent read and gives a really nice view of over 100 years of grim warfare.<br>
I just think this guy must write at lightning speed. This book dates from 2000, his book on Roman Warfare from the Cassell series (not much new stuff, just a very nice introduction) is from the same year and I saw that this fall he's publishing a book on Cannae.<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Although military history will forever be grateful to Liddell-Hart for being the only modern author to bring Scipio's talents to light, I strongly suggest you read other books on the other ancient captains who Liddell-Hart compares to his subject, so one would be informed of all aspects & not fall into the risk of being misled. Theodore Ayarault Dodge's books are highly recommended. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

Ciao Barca.<br>
I think I implied clearly enough in my remarks about the book that I have healthy doubts about it, but I did enjoy it. Read it anyway, if you already haven't, even if it contrasts somewhat with tradition and is maybe over stated. As a habit (something I leaned many years ago to do) I try always to imagine what the are hidden agendas in peoples positions. I have mine and try to be honest about it, at least to myself. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 7/20/01 8:09:49 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

I'm not a historian or a professional soldier but B. H. Liddell Hart wrote one of my favorites books: Strategy, the indirect approach.<br>
<br>
So historians are not in love with him?<br>
How much did his writings influence modern war doctrine?<br>
<br>
His strategies seem to work well for this wargamer. <br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Hello Paulus. Nice to see a fellow wargamer here. If you dont have them yet, I highly recommend Sid Meier's "Gettysburg" & "Antietam". There's also the most recent, "Waterloo:Napoleon's Final Battle". Their the best in PC wargaming. One that i'm looking forward to is the follow-up, "Austerlitz:Napoleon's Greatest Victory". Being a real-time strategy wargaming fanatic, these are the closest to "bringing me there".<br>
<br>
I haven't read much Liddell-Hart, though I must say he is a good historian & he brings his points out well. The only problem I find with him is his at times amateurish way in proving those points, where he blows his horn constantly with an "I told you so" attitude. He lacks the finesse & necessary distance that other better historians have. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I have enjoyed reading all of Captain Hart's works. He is clearly one of the greatest Historians of our time. Having studied the second punic war. I agree with Hart that Scipio is clearly one of the greatest generals of all time.<br>
<br>
Scipio being overlooked by some Historians who tend to belittle Scipio's achievements in favor of glorifying those of Hannibal. Scipio clearly won every battle, and defeated all of Hannibals Generals in Spain, and Hannibal himself at Zama. Scipio is clearly the victor in the 2nd punic war, not Hannibal.<br>
<br>
Hart believed Scipio was greater than Napoleon. It seems that Scipio was a better tactician than Napoleon. That Scipio was more able to fix and destroy the enemy with minimal losses. <p></p><i></i>

[Q Rutilius]

It sounds like this book is a good read. Thanks for starting this thread Goffredo. I've been considering purchasing it. I suppose Amazon or Barnes & Noble have it available. Liddel-Hart certainly has his opinions, but it sounds to me like this book is worth reading.<br>
<br>
I don't think that much has been published about Scipio. Anyone care to make any recommendations? <p></p><i></i>