<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: superb, excepting the analysis at the end
Review: This is the first biography I've read of Hannibal, but it probably won't be the last. I very much enjoyed the book, especially after Alps. The beginning is a bit slow and tedious, but it necessary to understand the more interesting part in the middle. Taking the elephants over the alps was really the least of Hannibal's many achievements, and Lamb makes this clear. He discusses a number of persistent myths and probable myths, including the idea that Carthage intentionally left Hannibal unaided out of political jealousy on the part of it's council. From Lamb's account, it seems likely that Carthage did all she could, but the city was mercantile in nature and had very little military aid to give. Hannibal probably succeeded in giving her another 40 years of peace before the inevitable jealous annihilation by Rome. Lamb also spends a fair amount of text on the curious parallels between Skipio Africanus (not to be confused with the Skipio who eventually sacked Carthage; that was an adopted grandson) and Hannibal. Lamb traces Skipio's rise to power, his work in putting Rome back on her feet to face Hannibal, his conquest of Africa, and his eventually disillusionment with Rome and self-imposed exile. He died in the same year as his old enemy. In addition to being a great story, the audible recording is exceptionally clear and easy to understand in a tape adaptor.
The book was thoughtful and well-written. The reason I give it four stars rather than five is that Lamb's analysis at the end leaves something to be desired. He tries to make the point that Hannibal was the greatest proven general who ever lived. He says that the only other general worth comparing him to is Alexander because both Hannibal and Alexander maintained an army on a hostile continent for decades. This is quite true, and I agree with some of Lamb's points. However, I have read enough history on Alexander to say with confidence that Lamb ignores a few glaring facts. The two were in very different situations. Alexander was trying to consolidate an empire. He was trying to conduct his campaign in such a way as to endear himself to mutually hostile Greeks and Persians, as well as a host of other peoples. This balancing act was quite different from Hannibal's war of nerves with Rome. Lamb, however, seeks to make a comparison between the two after barely acknowledging the enormous differences between their goals and situations. This was unprofessional. I see no reason to have to manipulate the truth about Alexander in order to make him look bad so that Hannibal can look good. Hannibal comes off well enough as it is. However, when Lamb is not analyzing, I really enjoyed his book.
<< 1 >>
| 
