Scipio Africanus - Greater Than Napoleon

[Divi Filius]

In terms of a biography, him and Scullards are the only works I know of; and the latter is superior. Of general histories of the period, there is Goldsworthy "Punic Wars" along with Nigel Bagnall.

 

Not much out there on the era but I will say that the few available are more detailed and far more scholarly.

[Callaecus]

In terms of a biography, him and Scullards are the only works I know of; and the latter is superior. Of general histories of the period, there is Goldsworthy "Punic Wars" along with Nigel Bagnall.

 

Not much out there on the era but I will say that the few available are more detailed and far more scholarly.

Thanks for the info, but I didn't explain myself better before. What I'd like to know is if you don't mind comparing with a couple of good examples the book of Liddel Hart and another one and show us the differences.

[Divi Filius]

I can't delve into any detail as I:

1. Don't have any of those books on hand at this moment.

2. This review was written over two months ago, the book was read around then also.

 

I can say the main differences are that there are a multitude of citations in the more modern works which give them far more credibility, whereas Lindell only uses primary sources, of them Livy and Polybius almost exclusively. They have more depth, and aren't so bogged down by proving points outside of the historical context contemporary with Scipio.

[Gaius Octavius]

D.F.:

 

Where do the 'more modern' writers get their information from?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

You know, Scipio Africanus is one of the least mentioned of the great generals of history. Everyone talks about Caesar, Napolean, Alexander, Hannibal - these are pretty much household names now.

I liked Liddell Hart's book and I think it throws more light on the life of this great general and on his capabilities. Another thing I like about the book is that it is written by a soldier and a military theorist that had a significant following in the 20th century, and that gives his work a perspective that is very refreshing for someone interested in military history such as myself

[Julia C]

Well, I would say that Napoleon was greater than Scipio in some ways, and not in others (most notably in the difference in their personal lives). However, as tactics go, I think Napoleon was the better. That being said, there are certain Roman generals that were far better than Napoleon ever could be.

 

 

Marvel

 

Far better than Napoleon could ever be? Which generals, and why?

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

Napoleon's greatest flaws were his arrogance and his disconnect from those around him unless he himself would be directly affected. After the disaster in Russia he would hold eleborate balls, one quote from a French colonel,"People were shocked to see the Emperor enteraining at Tuileries. It was an insult to public grief and revealed cruel sensitivity to the victims." Napolean was also know to abandon his army in the field, as he did in Russia during the French retreat. You cannot be a good leader by repeatedly glossing or ignoring your mistakes and not expressing at least a small amount of understanding of the misery of the people you lead in which your decisions have caused. As great of a general as Napoleon was, he was a failure as a diplomat and did not rule the lands he conquered wisely, as in the repeated uprisings of the Prussians and Austrians against Napolean despite being beaten badly by him numerous times. He simply believed that if he defeated an enemy army than that nation would just lay down to him and that they would have to accept whatever he wanted. He really didn't even try to pass himself off as a benevolent ruler.

 

Scipio Africanus after defeating Hannibal at Zama did not raze carthage, as was expected of him, and was generaly moderate to the defeated Carthagians. Scipio refused to made Dictator for life, he didn't hunger for power like Napolean and fought more for the protection of Rome against her enemies, and not their annihilation, which was what Napolean wanted for his enemies but never got. I think history looks more favorable on the humble and generous Scipio, than the arrogant and power hungry Napolean.

[Divi Filius]

Ultimately(I believe), those who go out and compare Napoleon and Scipio after reading this book or its title miss the point: the glaring statement is not so much a serious one, but rather one there to bring attention to Scipio and LH's book. The statement is never truly defended, except on occasion.

 

It is there simply in order to make people think about Scipio; from the very onset of the book Lindell groans about that fact that there is not much out there on him.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Divi Filius

[AndrewLC]

I cant find this in Barnes and Noble