Goldsworthy\'s "The Punic Wars."

[MikeArledge]

Has anyone read Goldsworthy's "the Punic Wars"? I found it in Borders this weekend for $10 USD. If you have read other texts does it do much one way or the other to enhance your understanding of the war?

I like Goldsworthy a lot, but it looks like a pretty fry read from the few pages I thumbed through.

Mike

[FAVENTIANVS]

I did, a Spanish translation. It was quite amusing. I also read (in English) "The Roman army at war" and it was great.

[Goffredo]

I re-read it recently and enjoyed it all the way!
This is what I wrote back in 2001:
------------------------------------------------------------
Finally got Goldsworthy's "Punic Wars" two days ago and I am almost finished! (Yes, I am on vacation!). Wonderful. I am impressed by the way this Goldsworthy writes.

But apart from Goldworthy's talents what impresses me are the many drammatic sub-stories and characters that these Wars are full of. Of course Hannibal is wonderful but I liked very much the vivid telling of other lesser known episodes and personalities. The roman system kept putting in the spot light new leaders, each vigorously trying to make an impression in the short time span he was alotted. No wonder the roman were so aggressive. Of course some weren't talented but the system kept the pressure on the next guy that to have a chance had best learn the lessons, military and political, of those before him. Few were lasting figures but all were determined to leave a mark, and determination is important. No wonder the romans won.

Many things caught my attention: mention is made of a solution of the cavalry problem adopted in a particular theater in sothern Italy. The winning idea had some light infantry ride along together with and behind the cavalry. During a fight they would dismount and form a formation behind which the cavalry in distress could re-assemble and muster up energy and determination for another charge. Interesting that this successful solution wasn't used systematically and elsewhere. Goldsworthy indeed comments that it isn't to be considered an evolution of roman fighting but only a particular solution to a specific problem.

Another thing on cavalry. Goldsworthy suggests the four-horned saddle, possibly a Gaulic invention, was already known back then. But then he also describes a few cavalry battles were the troopers got off their horses to fight almost stand-still battles. To me it this seems to contradict the notion that the four-horned saddle garanteed cavalry men a certain stability. Why get off the horse to fight? Did I read those passages wrongly? Anyone?

One of many things that I didn't know (as I was ignorant of these wars, besides the usual over digested info) was that in several occasions Carthaginian armies used elephants - not Hannibal, that had only one left. But I still gather, from Goldsworthy's telling, that they basically added to confusion and never really determined the outcome of the fighting. Just another obsolete weapon platform that the military insisted in using. History is full of examples.

Another thing that Goldsworthy mentions repeatedly with many incedible examples is the lack of "intelligence". It is drammatic how scouting parties and armies would miss or find each other almost by accident. The first example in the second war was the miss of Hannibal with Publius Scipio at the Rhone. I admire the roman's judgement and decision not follow then and there Hannibal but send his army onwards to Spain.

Could go on for hours. Better stop here.

ciao

P.S. Looking at the larger picture of the wars, and not just at the genius Hannibal, the Romans were just as clever and inventive as the Carthaginans, not only in the first war (when the romans turned thenselves into sea fighters), but also in the second one when they had to keep Hannibal in check and fight against the other Carthaginian forces. I do believe that secondary characters and stories are more telling than the greater ones.

[MikeArledge]

thanks, sounds like i should check it out after all then.