Customer Review
- Reviewed in the United States on October 25, 2007First off, this book has a bias.
Hart is making a case that Scipio Africanus is, perhaps, the greatest general in history. He states this up front and makes no apologies for it. His reason for this is that (modern) history up until now has been considerably biased towards Hannibal (and that there was no current book about Scipio at all). Where Hart deviates from standard history or tries to explain the motivation for his point of view he gives a reason for his difference and explains the consensus point of view.
If you read Dodge (biography about Hannibal) or many of the other sources (such as Wikipedia pages on Hannibal, Scipio or the battle of Zama), you would wonder how Scipio was able to get out of his own way to win the battle. Basically, they are biased and pose as neutral.
For instance, you hear often how the forces were nearly equal (in strength) in the battle of Zama or how Scipio had the advantage as he had better cavalry. Scipio was considerably outnumbered in infantry in all the history books (Livy and Polybius) AND you never heard the cavalry excuse used in every other battle where Hannibal had the vast advantage in that. They discount the value of the war elephants completely stating they are only North African elephants and not very big. Well, until that time they had been spectacularly effective. They were specifically forbidden in the treaty after Zama so if they had no value they would not have been expressly put in the treaty. Also, you hear Scipio's Spanish victories are worthless as all the other Carthaginian generals (Mago, Hasdrubal, etc.) opposing him were incompetent. Or read the description of when Scipio asks Hannibal about the 3 greatest generals here (or in Livy) and then read it in Hannibal's wikipedia (from a bio of Hannibal). The story seems totally different. Finally, you hear a lot of complaints about his action (sneak attack) that took Syphax out of the battle as unethical. But when Hannibal uses an ambush himself, it is brilliant strategy.
The point being, yes, this book is biased towards Scipio. But, if you read the book, Hart does explain his reasoning and the opposing point(s) of view and unlike the other books does not pretend neutrality. Until I read this book (which led to reading other books on the Punic wars) I had not been cognizant of the bias. Where it (the bias) is from I'm not sure. Because Carthage is an underdog vs. Rome? Because of the romantic factor with taking the elepants over the Alps?
Hannibal was certainly on the most gifted generals ever to live and Hart does give him his due. For whatever reason, others tend to denigrate Scipio's accomplishments to burnish Hannibal's reputation. This just makes me curious what the movie of Hannibal (starring Vin Diesel) is going to show about Scipio.
Whatever anyone says, in the end, Scipio won every battle where he was the commander. Really, that is all anyone could have done.
