 |
The First Punic War by J. Lazenby
Book Summary InformationAuthor: J. Lazenby Edition: Hardcover Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published) Published: 1996-06-01 ISBN: 0804726736 Number of pages: 224 Publisher: Stanford University Press
Book Reviews of The First Punic WarBook Review: More than a scene-setter for Hannibal Summary: 5 Stars
J.F. Lazenby claims his book is the first history of the First Punic War in English. The story, of course, as been told before, but usually as a scene-setter for the more dramatic career of Hannibal in the Second War.
However, the first war was even more important. Not only was it "the longest war in ancient history," it was Rome's first war outside Italy. It was, Lazenby says, by no means certain that Rome would be the victor in any, much less all three, of its wars with Carthage. Therefore, he judges the victory ending the first war in 241 BC one of the most important in all history. He also labels the naval battle of Ecnormus the greatest in all history, at least in terms of numbers of sailors engaged.
It should be remembered that this started just a century before the revolt of the Maccabees, in an out-of-the-way place. Carthage was big and strong, Rome an emerging regional power.
Since my primary interest is the role of sea power, the First Punic War is of special interest. Throughout history, in situations where sea power could be decisive, it almost always has been. Not here. At least, not in the way anyone would have expected.
At the start, Carthage was the sea power, with better ships, better sailors. It should have had better captains, but perhaps it did not. Rome had no navy at all, although its recently absorbed southern Italian allies (Greeks) had maritime experience.
Carthage ought to have been able to use the flexibility of sea power to quickly end Rome's entry into Sicily. As it happened, Rome won every sea battle but one. In part this was due to advances in technology (the corvus or boarding ramp) and tactics (use of shore artillery to defend an inferior fleet).
However, these victories, until the last one, did not count for much in the campaign because three times Rome's navy was destroyed by storms, twice just after important victories.
Lazenby tentatively identifies the difference as strategic: Rome was bent on conquest (though not at the outset), while Carthage, a trading power, preferred peace, business and compromise of differences. Rome would not settle for less than total victory.
Lazenby says of the Romans, "they thought they had to finish anything they began, nothing they had once decided to do being impossible." That used to be the American way of war, too, but no longer.
"The First Punic War" is one of the oddest history books I have ever read. The sources are few and contradictory, and while archaeology, numismatics and geography are some help, the word "uncertain" appears scores of times. "It is difficult to know what to make of all this," Lazenby says over and over.
He makes an excellent effort, nevertheless.
Although I usually avoid commenting on other reviews, I am mystified by the reviewer who complained that Lazenby does not give a strategic view. He does, and in an epilogue recapitulates his strategic conclusions.
Summary of The First Punic WarThis is the first comprehensive study of the longest continuous war (264 to 241 b.c.) in ancient history, and, in terms of the numbers of ships and men involved, probably the greatest naval war ever fought.
|
 |