What do you think?
Rate this book
Hannibal
Hannibal was a Carthaginian military commander and tactician, who is often credited as one of the greatest and most intelligent commanders in history. His most famous achievement was at the outbreak of the Second Punic War, when he marched an army, which included war elephants, from Spain over the Pyrenees and the Alps into northern Italy.
[Kindle]
[Kindle]
151 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1849
62 people are currently reading
314 people want to read
About the author
Jacob Abbott
1,400 books91 followersAbbott was born at Hallowell, Maine to Jacob and Betsey Abbott. He graduated from Bowdoin College in 1820; studied at Andover Theological Seminary in 1821, 1822, and 1824; was tutor in 1824-1825, and from 1825 to 1829 was professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Amherst College; was licensed to preach by the Hampshire Association in 1826; founded the Mount Vernon School for Young Ladies in Boston in 1829, and was principal of it in 1829-1833; was pastor of Eliot Congregational Church (which he founded), at Roxbury, Massachusetts in 1834-1835; and was, with his brothers, a founder, and in 1843-1851 a principal of Abbott's Institute, and in 1845-1848 of the Mount Vernon School for Boys, in New York City.
He was a prolific author, writing juvenile fiction, brief histories, biographies, religious books for the general reader, and a few works in popular science. He died in Farmington, Maine, where he had spent part of his time after 1839, and where his brother, Samuel Phillips Abbott, founded the Abbott School.
His Rollo Books, such as Rollo at Work, Rollo at Play, Rollo in Europe, etc., are the best known of his writings, having as their chief characters a representative boy and his associates. In them Abbott did for one or two generations of young American readers a service not unlike that performed earlier, in England and America, by the authors of Evenings at Home, The History of Sandford and Merton, and the The Parent's Assistant.
Fewacres in 1906, Abbott's residence at Farmington, Maine
His brothers, John S.C. Abbott and Gorham Dummer Abbott, were also authors. His sons, Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Austin Abbott, both eminent lawyers, Lyman Abbott, and Edward Abbott, a clergyman, were also well-known authors.
He was a prolific author, writing juvenile fiction, brief histories, biographies, religious books for the general reader, and a few works in popular science. He died in Farmington, Maine, where he had spent part of his time after 1839, and where his brother, Samuel Phillips Abbott, founded the Abbott School.
His Rollo Books, such as Rollo at Work, Rollo at Play, Rollo in Europe, etc., are the best known of his writings, having as their chief characters a representative boy and his associates. In them Abbott did for one or two generations of young American readers a service not unlike that performed earlier, in England and America, by the authors of Evenings at Home, The History of Sandford and Merton, and the The Parent's Assistant.
Fewacres in 1906, Abbott's residence at Farmington, Maine
His brothers, John S.C. Abbott and Gorham Dummer Abbott, were also authors. His sons, Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Austin Abbott, both eminent lawyers, Lyman Abbott, and Edward Abbott, a clergyman, were also well-known authors.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
August 10, 2011
Well, this was actually quite disappointing. I probably went into this book with the wrong expectations, but it still ruined it for me. Hannibal Barca, son of Hamilcar Barca, was a Carthaginian general of such brilliance that he is comparable to Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus of Epirus and Scipio Africanus (who became great studying Hannibal, and finally defeated him). Virtually every family in Rome lost a family member due to Hannibal in the fifteen years he spent occupying Italy like the Black Death, and had the Carthaginians supplied him with siege weapons (as he repeatedly requested), it is entirely possible (dare I say probable?) that he would have taken Rome itself. After all, he never lost a battle to the Romans in fifteen years of fighting them, and he was outnumbered in (almost?) every one of their conflicts.
I was hoping for rundowns of his battles, his military strategy, his greatest victories and how they were achieved, armor and battle array, especially of Cannae: where Barca was outnumbered something like two to one, and yet it was the greatest defeat ever suffered by the Romans, who lost over 25% of their governing body in a matter of hours, and Cannae to this day is one of the bloodiest battles in human history. And I wanted to know exactly how the great Hannibal Barca, with all his elephants and heavy cavalry, was finally brought to bay by Scipio Africanus, and I didn't get a bit of it. Well, a bit. But it was preachy. "War is bad." Yeah, I know, but this guy was really good at it. That's what I was interested in.
To give a quick example: the fifteen years that he spent in Italy ravaging the countryside and decimating every single military force that the Romans could raise against him? It's mentioned in a phrase: it doesn't even earn a full sentence, just a phrase. We get a bit of depth in a couple of battles, but no detail of strategy: we are told that people hacked each other to pieces for hours, and then this side won. We are told that Hannibal was cunning, and we're given a couple of political strategies that he employed to great effect. We're told that he was ruthless, and we're given no examples. We are given examples of his generosity, and are told that it served a political purpose. Superstitions of the time are mocked, and a modern materialistic view of the world is superimposed upon the ancients.
Basically, I felt like Abbott had some deep-seated personal grudge against Hannibal, and wrote this biography as a chance to lambast him. "Every great man nowadays has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography." Well, Hannibal Barca was not recent, but this seems to apply quite aptly. So, I've got to say that this was an extremely poor biography of Hannibal if you're looking for any military strategy at all. But it was fully accurate (from a modern's point of view) on all it touched.
One conversation that was related, which was for me the high point of the book (and by the time it was related I would have put money down that it wouldn't have been) was between Hannibal and Scipio, long after their battle against each other (where Hannibal was destroyed by the great Scipio Africanus). In the conversation, military strategy naturally came up, and Scipio asked Hannibal who he considered to be the greatest military genius (clearly angling for a compliment, possibly for a well-deserved compliment). Hannibal responded that Alexander the Great was. Not pleased, but probably not surprised, Scipio asked who the second was. Hannibal responded with Pyrrhus of Epirus, due to his ability to make his soldiers and the inhabitants of conquered lands love him. Scipio then asked who was third, and Hannibal said something along the lines of, "well, that would be me." Deeply offended, Scipio sarcastically asked how Hannibal would have ranked himself if he had managed to defeat the lowly Scipio Africanus. Hannibal responded, rather surprised, that had he beat Scipio, he would have no choice but to place himself above even Alexander the Great of Macedon as the greatest military genius of all time.
I was hoping for rundowns of his battles, his military strategy, his greatest victories and how they were achieved, armor and battle array, especially of Cannae: where Barca was outnumbered something like two to one, and yet it was the greatest defeat ever suffered by the Romans, who lost over 25% of their governing body in a matter of hours, and Cannae to this day is one of the bloodiest battles in human history. And I wanted to know exactly how the great Hannibal Barca, with all his elephants and heavy cavalry, was finally brought to bay by Scipio Africanus, and I didn't get a bit of it. Well, a bit. But it was preachy. "War is bad." Yeah, I know, but this guy was really good at it. That's what I was interested in.
To give a quick example: the fifteen years that he spent in Italy ravaging the countryside and decimating every single military force that the Romans could raise against him? It's mentioned in a phrase: it doesn't even earn a full sentence, just a phrase. We get a bit of depth in a couple of battles, but no detail of strategy: we are told that people hacked each other to pieces for hours, and then this side won. We are told that Hannibal was cunning, and we're given a couple of political strategies that he employed to great effect. We're told that he was ruthless, and we're given no examples. We are given examples of his generosity, and are told that it served a political purpose. Superstitions of the time are mocked, and a modern materialistic view of the world is superimposed upon the ancients.
Basically, I felt like Abbott had some deep-seated personal grudge against Hannibal, and wrote this biography as a chance to lambast him. "Every great man nowadays has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography." Well, Hannibal Barca was not recent, but this seems to apply quite aptly. So, I've got to say that this was an extremely poor biography of Hannibal if you're looking for any military strategy at all. But it was fully accurate (from a modern's point of view) on all it touched.
One conversation that was related, which was for me the high point of the book (and by the time it was related I would have put money down that it wouldn't have been) was between Hannibal and Scipio, long after their battle against each other (where Hannibal was destroyed by the great Scipio Africanus). In the conversation, military strategy naturally came up, and Scipio asked Hannibal who he considered to be the greatest military genius (clearly angling for a compliment, possibly for a well-deserved compliment). Hannibal responded that Alexander the Great was. Not pleased, but probably not surprised, Scipio asked who the second was. Hannibal responded with Pyrrhus of Epirus, due to his ability to make his soldiers and the inhabitants of conquered lands love him. Scipio then asked who was third, and Hannibal said something along the lines of, "well, that would be me." Deeply offended, Scipio sarcastically asked how Hannibal would have ranked himself if he had managed to defeat the lowly Scipio Africanus. Hannibal responded, rather surprised, that had he beat Scipio, he would have no choice but to place himself above even Alexander the Great of Macedon as the greatest military genius of all time.
August 28, 2014
In typical Jacob Abbott fashion (19th century author of history books for kids, he tells a great story. Hannibal shows the folly of great men looking for personal glory through war.
He was a genius strategist and leader of men in getting across the Rhone through trickery, the Alps trough determination and trickery, and prolonging his occupation of Italy through similar means. However, known to history as one of the great generals he ultimately, through his conceit, led indirectly to the destruction of Carthage years later in the 3rd Punic War.
To think what the course of history would have been had Carthage mustered proper reinforcements. Would Carthage have taken Rome? If so, how would Carthage have handled the early Christians? What would modern Europe have looked like and who would have ultimately settled America? Fun to consider.
He was a genius strategist and leader of men in getting across the Rhone through trickery, the Alps trough determination and trickery, and prolonging his occupation of Italy through similar means. However, known to history as one of the great generals he ultimately, through his conceit, led indirectly to the destruction of Carthage years later in the 3rd Punic War.
To think what the course of history would have been had Carthage mustered proper reinforcements. Would Carthage have taken Rome? If so, how would Carthage have handled the early Christians? What would modern Europe have looked like and who would have ultimately settled America? Fun to consider.
January 2, 2015
Hannibal is one of the most remembered leaders of history. Every history textbook (at least in Europe) writes about his travels through the Alps, his attack of Italy (then the Roman Empire) and his subsequent demise. What many forget is the historical impact that Hannibal has had on the world, what the consequences of his battles have done for Italy, but even more for the Carthaginian empire (I bet you haven’t even heard of it). Jacob Abbott takes us, once again, on a journey through history and introduces Hannibal: Maker of History.
Hannibal Barca, son of Hamilcar Barca, was a brilliant strategist. As soon as he became of age he rose in rank within the army of Carthage and become one of its greatest generals. Carthage itself is an ancient empire that occupied the other side of the Mediterranean Sea from the Roman Empire. It lay in parts of countries now called Spain, Morocco, Liberia and Algeria. It was known for its commerce and found its origin from Tyre, the fortress city that almost successfully fought of Alexander the Great.
If Carthage was so known for its commerce, why then would Hannibal try and subdue the Romans? This hatred for the Romans originated from the the first Punic War. In this 24 year war, the Romans almost completely defeated the Carthaginians and became the seed for Hannibal’s anger. In the following decades he would go on to invade Italy (travelling via Spain and France) and almost crush the Romans.
Hannibal was a master of tactics. Even before I discuss his tactics in war, I would like to point out his savviness in politics. When opposed by Hanno for taking the command of the army he used his strength, youth and vigour to his advantage. He knew that great stories and promises do well, and that in the end even the best arguments can lose from passion (as illustrated by Cleopatra a small 200 years later).
In war he knew even better what to do. When marching through part of nowadays France, he won the hearts of the local governments by making clear that he was only passing through and had no intention of hurting them. In the Alps he received guidance by the locals and led his troops (including elephants) up into the mountains. And when he finally traversed the Alps, before meeting the Romans, showed his men the following. He gathered a few soldiers he had captured from traitorous mountaineers and let them fight one-on-one. He promised the victor freedom and kept to his word. After that he told his men: We are these soldiers, the men that have to fight for victory. But it will be easy, we are brave and strong men who will face the weaker forces of Scipio, we will be the victors.
In subsequent battles Hannibal conquered most of Italy but never succeeded to take Rome. In the battle of Cannæ he won a battle of 50.000 versus 80.000 men by faking a half surrender and later attacking the Romans in the back. In the end he was not defeated because his army was not strong enough (most of the time he had won with smaller armies, but better tactics). In the end he lost the war because he faced a better strategist than himself, Scipio – the son of one he faced in the very beginning after crossing the Alps. After 17 years of war, Hannibal was defeated, the second Punic war ended, and Carthage was back to the way it was.
But the flame that Hannibal ignited stayed lid for 52 years, after which the third (and final) Punic War broke out. The Carthaginians lose the war and are to surrender. The Romans enforce their, very harsh, conditions for peace by taking the sons of the most prominent families of Carthage. The Carthaginians first resist but then comply with the demands. Scipio however had not made all his demands, he wanted to destroy Carthage itself. Again emotions win from reason and when the Carthaginians have already surrendered their weapons and are at a very strong disadvantage, they start to fight back. Every brick is turned into a stone to throw, hairs are bundled to make strings for bows, and the Carthaginians fight bravely for their city.
Alas, in the end it goes down in flames. The conquests of Hannibal in the end result in the downfall of the Carthaginian Empire. As was the case with Alexander the Great, Hannibal was responsible for many deaths, as much that in each Roman family a brother or nephew was most likely to have died because of him. In the end it has costed not only lives, but an entire empire to perish from his actions. In yet another great book by Jacob Abbott the whole scene, spanning more than 200 years is described in detail. It provides enough stories to give a detailed look into the specific history, and at the same time describes the era and leaves enough room for philosophical reflections to which I am prone. Hannibal does not need to be the next book you read, but do definitively read it when convenient.
Hannibal Barca, son of Hamilcar Barca, was a brilliant strategist. As soon as he became of age he rose in rank within the army of Carthage and become one of its greatest generals. Carthage itself is an ancient empire that occupied the other side of the Mediterranean Sea from the Roman Empire. It lay in parts of countries now called Spain, Morocco, Liberia and Algeria. It was known for its commerce and found its origin from Tyre, the fortress city that almost successfully fought of Alexander the Great.
If Carthage was so known for its commerce, why then would Hannibal try and subdue the Romans? This hatred for the Romans originated from the the first Punic War. In this 24 year war, the Romans almost completely defeated the Carthaginians and became the seed for Hannibal’s anger. In the following decades he would go on to invade Italy (travelling via Spain and France) and almost crush the Romans.
Hannibal was a master of tactics. Even before I discuss his tactics in war, I would like to point out his savviness in politics. When opposed by Hanno for taking the command of the army he used his strength, youth and vigour to his advantage. He knew that great stories and promises do well, and that in the end even the best arguments can lose from passion (as illustrated by Cleopatra a small 200 years later).
In war he knew even better what to do. When marching through part of nowadays France, he won the hearts of the local governments by making clear that he was only passing through and had no intention of hurting them. In the Alps he received guidance by the locals and led his troops (including elephants) up into the mountains. And when he finally traversed the Alps, before meeting the Romans, showed his men the following. He gathered a few soldiers he had captured from traitorous mountaineers and let them fight one-on-one. He promised the victor freedom and kept to his word. After that he told his men: We are these soldiers, the men that have to fight for victory. But it will be easy, we are brave and strong men who will face the weaker forces of Scipio, we will be the victors.
In subsequent battles Hannibal conquered most of Italy but never succeeded to take Rome. In the battle of Cannæ he won a battle of 50.000 versus 80.000 men by faking a half surrender and later attacking the Romans in the back. In the end he was not defeated because his army was not strong enough (most of the time he had won with smaller armies, but better tactics). In the end he lost the war because he faced a better strategist than himself, Scipio – the son of one he faced in the very beginning after crossing the Alps. After 17 years of war, Hannibal was defeated, the second Punic war ended, and Carthage was back to the way it was.
But the flame that Hannibal ignited stayed lid for 52 years, after which the third (and final) Punic War broke out. The Carthaginians lose the war and are to surrender. The Romans enforce their, very harsh, conditions for peace by taking the sons of the most prominent families of Carthage. The Carthaginians first resist but then comply with the demands. Scipio however had not made all his demands, he wanted to destroy Carthage itself. Again emotions win from reason and when the Carthaginians have already surrendered their weapons and are at a very strong disadvantage, they start to fight back. Every brick is turned into a stone to throw, hairs are bundled to make strings for bows, and the Carthaginians fight bravely for their city.
Alas, in the end it goes down in flames. The conquests of Hannibal in the end result in the downfall of the Carthaginian Empire. As was the case with Alexander the Great, Hannibal was responsible for many deaths, as much that in each Roman family a brother or nephew was most likely to have died because of him. In the end it has costed not only lives, but an entire empire to perish from his actions. In yet another great book by Jacob Abbott the whole scene, spanning more than 200 years is described in detail. It provides enough stories to give a detailed look into the specific history, and at the same time describes the era and leaves enough room for philosophical reflections to which I am prone. Hannibal does not need to be the next book you read, but do definitively read it when convenient.
October 21, 2023
**Hannibal by Jacob Abbott - A Comprehensive Look into a Legendary Military Strategist**
Jacob Abbott's "Hannibal" offers readers a detailed journey into the life and exploits of one of history's most formidable military leaders. Abbott, known for his knack for historical storytelling, provides a comprehensive account of Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian general who famously led his army and elephants over the Alps to challenge the Roman Republic.
**Pros:**
1. **Engaging Writing:** Abbott's prose is captivating, making complex historical events accessible to readers of all backgrounds. His storytelling prowess keeps the reader engaged, turning the pages with anticipation.
2. **Character Exploration:** Beyond just the historical facts, Abbott attempts to delve into Hannibal's psyche, exploring the motivations and personal vendettas that drove his relentless campaign against Rome.
**Cons:**
1. **Dated Perspective:** Given that the book was written in the 19th century, some of the interpretations and perspectives might seem outdated to the modern reader. The book might not reflect the latest historical research or nuances that recent scholars have brought to light.
2. **Historical Depth:** Abbott delves deep into the origins, motivations, and cultural background of Hannibal, painting a vivid picture of the times he lived in. The narrative doesn't just focus on his military campaigns but offers limited insights into the socio-political dynamics of the era.
**Conclusion:**
Jacob Abbott's "Hannibal" is a compelling read for history enthusiasts and those curious about the Carthaginian general who dared to defy Rome at its peak. While the book offers a thorough account, readers should be aware of its 19th-century perspective and might want to supplement their reading with more recent research on Hannibal and the Punic Wars.
https://librivox.org/hannibal-by-jaco...
Jacob Abbott's "Hannibal" offers readers a detailed journey into the life and exploits of one of history's most formidable military leaders. Abbott, known for his knack for historical storytelling, provides a comprehensive account of Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian general who famously led his army and elephants over the Alps to challenge the Roman Republic.
**Pros:**
1. **Engaging Writing:** Abbott's prose is captivating, making complex historical events accessible to readers of all backgrounds. His storytelling prowess keeps the reader engaged, turning the pages with anticipation.
2. **Character Exploration:** Beyond just the historical facts, Abbott attempts to delve into Hannibal's psyche, exploring the motivations and personal vendettas that drove his relentless campaign against Rome.
**Cons:**
1. **Dated Perspective:** Given that the book was written in the 19th century, some of the interpretations and perspectives might seem outdated to the modern reader. The book might not reflect the latest historical research or nuances that recent scholars have brought to light.
2. **Historical Depth:** Abbott delves deep into the origins, motivations, and cultural background of Hannibal, painting a vivid picture of the times he lived in. The narrative doesn't just focus on his military campaigns but offers limited insights into the socio-political dynamics of the era.
**Conclusion:**
Jacob Abbott's "Hannibal" is a compelling read for history enthusiasts and those curious about the Carthaginian general who dared to defy Rome at its peak. While the book offers a thorough account, readers should be aware of its 19th-century perspective and might want to supplement their reading with more recent research on Hannibal and the Punic Wars.
https://librivox.org/hannibal-by-jaco...
August 10, 2017
Hannibal was a Carthaginian general. I learned much about Hannibal beyond the well-known fact that he crossed the Alps with elephants (Africa —> Spain —> France —> Switzerland —> Italy)
The book is a good review of the three wars between Carthage and Rome, called the Punic Wars. (Punic was the language of Carthage, related to Phoenician.) Abbott highlights the fact that Carthage, a colony of Tyre, was first a city of commerce.
Hannibal converted a peaceful city-state into a military aggressor. There was no real cause for any disagreement between these two nations. Their hostility to each other was mere rivalry and spontaneous hate. Because of Hannibal's continuing hostilities, Carthage was completely destroyed by Rome.
Hannibal was wily, clever, and a thousand other synonyms for shrewd. He befuddled a string of Roman generals. I was surprised that he stayed in Italy for sixteen years giving Rome grief. Amazed that, given his violent lifestyle, he lived seventy-one years.
Hannibal's life was like an April day. Its brightest glory was in the morning. The setting of his sun was darkened by clouds and showers.
The book is a good review of the three wars between Carthage and Rome, called the Punic Wars. (Punic was the language of Carthage, related to Phoenician.) Abbott highlights the fact that Carthage, a colony of Tyre, was first a city of commerce.
Hannibal converted a peaceful city-state into a military aggressor. There was no real cause for any disagreement between these two nations. Their hostility to each other was mere rivalry and spontaneous hate. Because of Hannibal's continuing hostilities, Carthage was completely destroyed by Rome.
Hannibal was wily, clever, and a thousand other synonyms for shrewd. He befuddled a string of Roman generals. I was surprised that he stayed in Italy for sixteen years giving Rome grief. Amazed that, given his violent lifestyle, he lived seventy-one years.
Hannibal's life was like an April day. Its brightest glory was in the morning. The setting of his sun was darkened by clouds and showers.
July 10, 2014
Abbott's biographies are more than just the story of one person's life. He also weaves in the context and the antecedents, so one comes away with a much fuller understanding of the place of this person in history. He also interjects his own "therefore what" commentary. The ending of this book, Abbott's concluding commentary on Hannibal, was moving and poignant:
"War and commerce are the two great antagonistic principles which struggle for the mastery of the human race, the function of the one being to preserve, and that of the other to destroy. ...
"When Hannibal appeared upon the stage, he found his country engaged peacefully and prosperously in exchanging the productions of the various countries of the then known world, and promoting every where the comfort and happiness of mankind. He contrived to turn all these energies into the new current of military aggression, conquest, and war. ... He gained most splendid victories, devastated many lands, embarrassed and stopped the commercial intercourse which was carrying the comfort of life to so many thousand homes, and spread, instead of them, every where, privation, want, terror, with pestilence and famine in their train. ... In a word, he was one of the greatest military heroes that the world has every known."
"War and commerce are the two great antagonistic principles which struggle for the mastery of the human race, the function of the one being to preserve, and that of the other to destroy. ...
"When Hannibal appeared upon the stage, he found his country engaged peacefully and prosperously in exchanging the productions of the various countries of the then known world, and promoting every where the comfort and happiness of mankind. He contrived to turn all these energies into the new current of military aggression, conquest, and war. ... He gained most splendid victories, devastated many lands, embarrassed and stopped the commercial intercourse which was carrying the comfort of life to so many thousand homes, and spread, instead of them, every where, privation, want, terror, with pestilence and famine in their train. ... In a word, he was one of the greatest military heroes that the world has every known."
March 22, 2012
This book serves as an excellent introduction to one of the most important figures of the ancient world. Hannibal was one of the greatest military generals of the age but his legacy endured in the Roman psyche for centuries after his death.
Sections of the book are a tad brief and I did get the feeling that Jacob Abbott wasn't very approving of Hannibals' actions. Reading on the kindle, there was also an issue with accessing the maps, which might be a big problem for anyone unfamiliar with the geography of the western Mediterranean.
However, all books in this series are free on kindle and so are an absolute steal. I'm already looking forward to Alexander the Great.
Sections of the book are a tad brief and I did get the feeling that Jacob Abbott wasn't very approving of Hannibals' actions. Reading on the kindle, there was also an issue with accessing the maps, which might be a big problem for anyone unfamiliar with the geography of the western Mediterranean.
However, all books in this series are free on kindle and so are an absolute steal. I'm already looking forward to Alexander the Great.
June 29, 2012
This was a free book published a million years ago. I have quite a few Mr. Abbott's book about persons of note. They are really good except for the manner in which it printed for ereaders. Mr. Abbott has a keen understanding of men and how they are affected by different circumstances.
Hannibal was a clever and cunning warrior. When he and his army crossed the Alps, the conditions were deplorable. The weather, the cold, the terrane were so dangerous one wonders why his soldiers did not desert. He was a soldier who evenced confidence in his men. He made them believe in themselves because he believed in them. This book, being about the Punic Wars, is a Good Read.
Hannibal was a clever and cunning warrior. When he and his army crossed the Alps, the conditions were deplorable. The weather, the cold, the terrane were so dangerous one wonders why his soldiers did not desert. He was a soldier who evenced confidence in his men. He made them believe in themselves because he believed in them. This book, being about the Punic Wars, is a Good Read.
May 25, 2013
It total redifines what I know about Carthage. Yes I knew about the destructive force behind scipio the young, yes I knew about Hannibal being a trickster, a man who would use any means that would seem to favour another only to benefit his own good. But I was left still wanting to know more, I mean I can understand how he felt with his own country man betraying him and how he witness his brothers death; what I couldn't understand was the last general, Hasdrubal's ways. I feel there is more to the story, but none the less it's a good read.
Read
August 31, 2012Great Personality who surmounted all difficulties in order to get to Rome. However great he was, his weakness was in his insatiable desire to prove his prowess in defeating the Romans even when odds were against him. Lesson leearnt- we need to learn to understand our limits. Other than that its a great piece of history.
January 19, 2013
Another great historical classic by Jacob Abbott, this brief history of Hannibal is an accessible and generous account of his life and military career. As with almost every great leader of this kind, it has the tragic end to an otherwise astonishing career but it is nevertheless a compelling and interesting read.
May 13, 2014
Basic overview, he does not go too in depth about any battle but gives a good idea of how things unfolded.
August 27, 2015
Enjoyable reading, picked up because I'd heard so much about Hannibal without knowing a great deal about him. Found this a very enjoyable introduction.
April 8, 2016
A quick and dirty history of Hannibal and the Punic wars. Easily and quickly read. This is an overview that is without superfluous detail. Good for what it is.
November 24, 2025
"تاريخ هنيبال" لـِ Jacob Abbott، ترجمة نعوم مكرزل..
أنهيتُ الكتاب وخرجت منه بصدرٍ مُثقل بالغضب والحزن. لم أشعر أنّني أمام سيرة تاريخيّة حيّة، بل أمام نصٍّ جافّ يميل إلى السّرد الجامد، ويعيد إنتاج الرّواية الرّومانية القديمة التي لطالما قلّلت من شأن قرطاج وحنّبعل.
السّرد باهت، تقريري، خالٍ من حرارة التّاريخ وروح القائد.
غضبي دفعني للبحث عن الكاتب وأصله وزمانه، وعن هويّة المترجم، وعندها تبيّن لي أنّ Abbott مؤرّخ أمريكي من القرن التّاسع عشر كتب من منظور غربي يميل بوضوح إلى الرّواية الرّومانية التّقليدية، أمّا المترجم نعوم مكرزل فهو مفكّر وصحفي لبناني من المهجر عاش في أمريكا، له حسّ قومي وفينيقي، ما أثّر على اِختيار الأسلوب وأحيانًا على صياغة الأحداث، وعلى طريقته في تقديم قرطاج وكأنّها اِمتداد ثقافي لفينيقيا، بينما الواقع التّاريخي يقول أنّ الدّولة القرطاجيّة كانت كيانًا مستقلًّا له حكومته وجيشه وأسطوله ونفوذه وسيادته الكاملة في شمال أفريقيا وجنوب إسبانيا.
ثمّ اِكتشفت وجود نسختين لترجمة مكرزل: واحدة بعنوان "تاريخ هنيبال"، وأخرى بعنوان مختلف تمامًا، ومع ذلكـ وجدتُ إشادة واسعة بالمترجم، وكأنّ أحدًا لم ينتبه لميوله، ولا لتغييراته الجوهريّة، ولا للإنحياز الذي يتسلّل إلى النّصّ بوضوح.
وما زاد اِستغرابي أنّ مكرزل قدّم للكتاب عنوانين مختلفين بالكامل في طبعتين مختلفتين.
في إحدى النّسخ اِكتفى بعنوان باهت:
"تاريخ هنيبال"، وكأنّه يقدّم كتابًا مدرسيًّا جافًّا بلا روح.
وفي نسخة أخرى ذهب إلى النّقيض، وصاغ عنوانًا دعائيًّا لا علاقة له بالأصل: "تاريخ حنّبعل: أسطورة القائد الفينيقي الذي هزّ عرش روما وأعاد تشكيل فنون الحرب.
هنا لم يعد الأمر ترجمة، بل إعادة كتابة للعنوان وفق ميول أيديولوجيّة.
فقد حذف كلمة African من العنوان الأصلي (Hannibal: The African Warrior)، واِستبدلها بخطاب فينيقي مباشر، موجّهًا القارئ نحو قراءة أيديولوجيّة تُهمّش الهويّة الإفريقيّة لحنّبعل وتُعيد رسم قرطاج وفق رؤية لا تخدم الحقيقة. هذا التّلاعب بالعنوان ليس تفصيلاً… بل اِنحياز صريح يمسّ هويّة القائد والسّرد التّاريخي معًا.
العنوان الأصلي بسيط ودقيق: "حنّبعل: المحارب الإفريقي".
عنوان يضع القائد في مكانه الحقيقي الجغرافي والحضاري.
لكنّ التّرجمة حوّلته إلى شيء آخر تمامًا.
وهنا تجدر الإشارة إلى نقطة مهمّة يغفل عنها الكثيرون: كلمة "إفريقي" في العصور القديمة لم تكن تشير إلى القارّة كما نفهمها اليوم، بل كانت اِسمًا جغرافيًّا يطلق أساسًا على المنطقة التي تُعرف اليوم بتونس. فـ"إفريقيا" كانت تسمية رومانيّة لمقاطعة تقع في قلب الأراضي القرطاجيّة، ثمّ تَوسّع معناها لاحقًا ليُمنح للقارّة بأكملها.
بمعنى آخر: "المحارب الإفريقي" في العنوان الأصلي يعني عمليًّا "المحارب التّونسي/القرطاجي، اِبن هذه الأرض تحديدًا، وليس وصفًا عامًّا تُحاول بعض التيّارات، ومنها التيّارات الأفروسنتريكيّة المعاصرة، توظيفه خارج سياقه الجغرافي والتّاريخي الحقيقي.
وهنا، كمترجمة، شعرتُ بغضبٍ شديد… ثمّ كقرطاجيّة تضاعف غضبي. فالفرق بين "المحارب الإفريقي" و "القائد الفينيقي" ليس تفصيلًا لغويًّا، بل تحوّلٌ في الهويّة والسّرد التّاريخي، وفي نظرة القارئ إلى قرطاج نفسها. اِختيار مكرزل ليس بريئًا ولا محايدًا، بل هو إعادة توجيه للخطاب نحو رواية لا تخدم حقيقة التّاريخ.
أكثر ما أثار اِستيائي هو تصوير حنّبعل كرجل متعطّش للحرب، وكأنّه يحبّ القتال لذاته، بينما التّاريخ الحقيقي يثبت أنّه كان قائدًا نبيلًا حارب دفاعًا عن وطنه ومصالح شعبه، لا بدافع الطّمع أو الحقد. فقد واجه روما التي نقضت العهود، وخانت المواثيق، واِعتدت على أملاكـ قرطاج وحلفائها، وكان ردّه حماية لبلده ومجابهة للظّلم، لا حبًّا في الدّماء.
لم يكن طمّاعًا ولا متهوّرًا؛ بل مقاتلًا شرسًا في وجه الظّلم، يدافع عن شعبه وعن سيادة دولته.
كما ظلم الكتاب قرطاج نفسها، إذ يُقدّمها في كثير من المواضع كمدينة محدودة النّفوذ، متجاهلًا أنّها كانت دولة مستقلّة، ولها حضارة متجذّرة ونظام سياسي وتجاري متقدّم. أمّا الإصرار على تقديمها كاِمتداد "فينيقي" أو "لبناني"، فهو تفسير لاحق غير مثبت تاريخيًّا، ولا يستند إلى أدلّة قطعيّة، ولا يعكس اِستقلالها السّياسي ولا فرادة حضارتها.
يزداد التّشويه حين يتجاهل المؤلّف دور مجلس الشّيوخ القرطاجي في إحباط خطط حنّبعل، ويقدّم اِنسحابه من إيطاليا وكأنّه هروب، بينما كان سياسيًّا مفروضًا عليه لا خيارًا شخصيًّا.
أمّا التّرجمة فقد جاءت بأسلوب قديم، ثقيل، يزيد جمود النّص، ويكرّس الأحكام بدل أن يقدّم سيرة حيّة لقائد من أهمّ من مرّوا على التّاريخ العسكري.
خرجت من الكتاب غاضبة، ليس لأنّه لم ينصف حنّبعل القائد النّبيل، بل لأنّه لم يُنصف قرطاج نفسها، ولم يحترم تاريخًا عظيمًا تحاول الرّواية الرّومانية أن تلتهمه منذ قرون..
كتاب لا يعكس عمق الصّراع، ولا يُظهر نبل القائد، ولا يُنصف حضارة قرطاج التي وقفت شامخة أمام قوّة روما الطّامعة. القراءة فيه تحتاج إلى وعيٍ نقدي يقظ، وإلى إدراكـ بأنّ التّاريخ الذي كتبه المنتصر لا يمكن أن يكون الحقيقة الكاملة..
أبدًا....
أنهيتُ الكتاب وخرجت منه بصدرٍ مُثقل بالغضب والحزن. لم أشعر أنّني أمام سيرة تاريخيّة حيّة، بل أمام نصٍّ جافّ يميل إلى السّرد الجامد، ويعيد إنتاج الرّواية الرّومانية القديمة التي لطالما قلّلت من شأن قرطاج وحنّبعل.
السّرد باهت، تقريري، خالٍ من حرارة التّاريخ وروح القائد.
غضبي دفعني للبحث عن الكاتب وأصله وزمانه، وعن هويّة المترجم، وعندها تبيّن لي أنّ Abbott مؤرّخ أمريكي من القرن التّاسع عشر كتب من منظور غربي يميل بوضوح إلى الرّواية الرّومانية التّقليدية، أمّا المترجم نعوم مكرزل فهو مفكّر وصحفي لبناني من المهجر عاش في أمريكا، له حسّ قومي وفينيقي، ما أثّر على اِختيار الأسلوب وأحيانًا على صياغة الأحداث، وعلى طريقته في تقديم قرطاج وكأنّها اِمتداد ثقافي لفينيقيا، بينما الواقع التّاريخي يقول أنّ الدّولة القرطاجيّة كانت كيانًا مستقلًّا له حكومته وجيشه وأسطوله ونفوذه وسيادته الكاملة في شمال أفريقيا وجنوب إسبانيا.
ثمّ اِكتشفت وجود نسختين لترجمة مكرزل: واحدة بعنوان "تاريخ هنيبال"، وأخرى بعنوان مختلف تمامًا، ومع ذلكـ وجدتُ إشادة واسعة بالمترجم، وكأنّ أحدًا لم ينتبه لميوله، ولا لتغييراته الجوهريّة، ولا للإنحياز الذي يتسلّل إلى النّصّ بوضوح.
وما زاد اِستغرابي أنّ مكرزل قدّم للكتاب عنوانين مختلفين بالكامل في طبعتين مختلفتين.
في إحدى النّسخ اِكتفى بعنوان باهت:
"تاريخ هنيبال"، وكأنّه يقدّم كتابًا مدرسيًّا جافًّا بلا روح.
وفي نسخة أخرى ذهب إلى النّقيض، وصاغ عنوانًا دعائيًّا لا علاقة له بالأصل: "تاريخ حنّبعل: أسطورة القائد الفينيقي الذي هزّ عرش روما وأعاد تشكيل فنون الحرب.
هنا لم يعد الأمر ترجمة، بل إعادة كتابة للعنوان وفق ميول أيديولوجيّة.
فقد حذف كلمة African من العنوان الأصلي (Hannibal: The African Warrior)، واِستبدلها بخطاب فينيقي مباشر، موجّهًا القارئ نحو قراءة أيديولوجيّة تُهمّش الهويّة الإفريقيّة لحنّبعل وتُعيد رسم قرطاج وفق رؤية لا تخدم الحقيقة. هذا التّلاعب بالعنوان ليس تفصيلاً… بل اِنحياز صريح يمسّ هويّة القائد والسّرد التّاريخي معًا.
العنوان الأصلي بسيط ودقيق: "حنّبعل: المحارب الإفريقي".
عنوان يضع القائد في مكانه الحقيقي الجغرافي والحضاري.
لكنّ التّرجمة حوّلته إلى شيء آخر تمامًا.
وهنا تجدر الإشارة إلى نقطة مهمّة يغفل عنها الكثيرون: كلمة "إفريقي" في العصور القديمة لم تكن تشير إلى القارّة كما نفهمها اليوم، بل كانت اِسمًا جغرافيًّا يطلق أساسًا على المنطقة التي تُعرف اليوم بتونس. فـ"إفريقيا" كانت تسمية رومانيّة لمقاطعة تقع في قلب الأراضي القرطاجيّة، ثمّ تَوسّع معناها لاحقًا ليُمنح للقارّة بأكملها.
بمعنى آخر: "المحارب الإفريقي" في العنوان الأصلي يعني عمليًّا "المحارب التّونسي/القرطاجي، اِبن هذه الأرض تحديدًا، وليس وصفًا عامًّا تُحاول بعض التيّارات، ومنها التيّارات الأفروسنتريكيّة المعاصرة، توظيفه خارج سياقه الجغرافي والتّاريخي الحقيقي.
وهنا، كمترجمة، شعرتُ بغضبٍ شديد… ثمّ كقرطاجيّة تضاعف غضبي. فالفرق بين "المحارب الإفريقي" و "القائد الفينيقي" ليس تفصيلًا لغويًّا، بل تحوّلٌ في الهويّة والسّرد التّاريخي، وفي نظرة القارئ إلى قرطاج نفسها. اِختيار مكرزل ليس بريئًا ولا محايدًا، بل هو إعادة توجيه للخطاب نحو رواية لا تخدم حقيقة التّاريخ.
أكثر ما أثار اِستيائي هو تصوير حنّبعل كرجل متعطّش للحرب، وكأنّه يحبّ القتال لذاته، بينما التّاريخ الحقيقي يثبت أنّه كان قائدًا نبيلًا حارب دفاعًا عن وطنه ومصالح شعبه، لا بدافع الطّمع أو الحقد. فقد واجه روما التي نقضت العهود، وخانت المواثيق، واِعتدت على أملاكـ قرطاج وحلفائها، وكان ردّه حماية لبلده ومجابهة للظّلم، لا حبًّا في الدّماء.
لم يكن طمّاعًا ولا متهوّرًا؛ بل مقاتلًا شرسًا في وجه الظّلم، يدافع عن شعبه وعن سيادة دولته.
كما ظلم الكتاب قرطاج نفسها، إذ يُقدّمها في كثير من المواضع كمدينة محدودة النّفوذ، متجاهلًا أنّها كانت دولة مستقلّة، ولها حضارة متجذّرة ونظام سياسي وتجاري متقدّم. أمّا الإصرار على تقديمها كاِمتداد "فينيقي" أو "لبناني"، فهو تفسير لاحق غير مثبت تاريخيًّا، ولا يستند إلى أدلّة قطعيّة، ولا يعكس اِستقلالها السّياسي ولا فرادة حضارتها.
يزداد التّشويه حين يتجاهل المؤلّف دور مجلس الشّيوخ القرطاجي في إحباط خطط حنّبعل، ويقدّم اِنسحابه من إيطاليا وكأنّه هروب، بينما كان سياسيًّا مفروضًا عليه لا خيارًا شخصيًّا.
أمّا التّرجمة فقد جاءت بأسلوب قديم، ثقيل، يزيد جمود النّص، ويكرّس الأحكام بدل أن يقدّم سيرة حيّة لقائد من أهمّ من مرّوا على التّاريخ العسكري.
خرجت من الكتاب غاضبة، ليس لأنّه لم ينصف حنّبعل القائد النّبيل، بل لأنّه لم يُنصف قرطاج نفسها، ولم يحترم تاريخًا عظيمًا تحاول الرّواية الرّومانية أن تلتهمه منذ قرون..
كتاب لا يعكس عمق الصّراع، ولا يُظهر نبل القائد، ولا يُنصف حضارة قرطاج التي وقفت شامخة أمام قوّة روما الطّامعة. القراءة فيه تحتاج إلى وعيٍ نقدي يقظ، وإلى إدراكـ بأنّ التّاريخ الذي كتبه المنتصر لا يمكن أن يكون الحقيقة الكاملة..
أبدًا....
Read
December 26, 2025II/
It is better for a rebel not to hear an order which he is determined beforehand not to obey.
III/
He called together the ten thousand discontented troops that were still in his camp, and told them that, since they were afraid to accompany his army, or unwilling to do so, they might return.
This act of Hannibal, in permitting his discontented soldiers to return, had all the effect of a deed of generosity in its influence upon the minds of the soldiers who went on. We must not, however, imagine that it was prompted by a spirit of generosity at all. It was policy. A seeming generosity was, in this case, exactly what was wanted to answer his ends. Hannibal was mercilessly cruel in all cases where he imagined that severity was demanded.
VI/
In fact, in all enterprises undertaken by man, the indications of success, and the hopes based upon them, will fluctuate from time to time, and cause his confidence in the result to ebb and flow, so that bright anticipations of success and triumph will alternate in his heart with feelings of discouragement and despondency. This effect is experienced by all; by the energetic and decided as well as by the timid and the faltering.
The former, however, never allow these fluctuations of hope and fear to influence their action. They consider well the substantial grounds for expecting success before commencing their undertaking, and then go steadily forward, under all aspects of the sky-when it shines and when it rains till they reach the end. The inefficient and undecided can act only under the stimulus of present hope. The end they aim at must be visible before them all the time. If for a moment it passes out of view, their motive is gone, and they can do no more, till, by some change in circumstances, it comes in sight again.
VII/
Hannibal received them, but he was too sagacious to admit such a treacherous horde into his army. He treated them with great consideration and kindness, and dismissed them with presents, that they might all go to their respective homes, charging them to exert their influence in his favor among the tribes to which they severally belonged.
Napoleon used to say that one bad commander was better than two good ones, so essential is it to success in all military operations to secure that promptness, and confidence, and decision which can only exist where action is directed by one single mind.
IX/
I am sure that the true policy for us to adopt is the one which I marked out. That is always the proper course for the invaded to pursue with invaders, where there is the least doubt of the success of a battle. We grow strong while Hannibal grows continually weaker by delay. He can only prosper so long as he can fight battles and perform brilliant exploits. If we deprive him of this power, his strength will be continually wasting away, and the spirit and courage of his men waning. He has now scarce a third part of the army which he had when he crossed the Iberus, and nothing can save this remnant from destruction if we are wise."
XII/
War and commerce are the two great antagonistic principles which struggle for the mastery of the human race, the function of the one being to preserve, and that of the other to destroy. Commerce causes cities to be built and fields to be cultivated, and diffuses comfort and plenty, and all the blessings of industry and peace. It carries organization and order every where; it protects property and life; it disarms pestilence, and it prohibits famine. War, on the other hand, destroys. It disorganizes the social state. It ruins cities, depopulates fields, condemns men to idleness and want, and the only remedy it knows for the evils which it brings upon man is to shorten the miseries of its victims by giving pestilence and famine the most ample commision to destroy their lives. Thus war is the great enemy, while commerce is the great friend of humanity. They are antagonistic principles, contending continually for the mastery among all the organizations of men.
It is better for a rebel not to hear an order which he is determined beforehand not to obey.
III/
He called together the ten thousand discontented troops that were still in his camp, and told them that, since they were afraid to accompany his army, or unwilling to do so, they might return.
This act of Hannibal, in permitting his discontented soldiers to return, had all the effect of a deed of generosity in its influence upon the minds of the soldiers who went on. We must not, however, imagine that it was prompted by a spirit of generosity at all. It was policy. A seeming generosity was, in this case, exactly what was wanted to answer his ends. Hannibal was mercilessly cruel in all cases where he imagined that severity was demanded.
VI/
In fact, in all enterprises undertaken by man, the indications of success, and the hopes based upon them, will fluctuate from time to time, and cause his confidence in the result to ebb and flow, so that bright anticipations of success and triumph will alternate in his heart with feelings of discouragement and despondency. This effect is experienced by all; by the energetic and decided as well as by the timid and the faltering.
The former, however, never allow these fluctuations of hope and fear to influence their action. They consider well the substantial grounds for expecting success before commencing their undertaking, and then go steadily forward, under all aspects of the sky-when it shines and when it rains till they reach the end. The inefficient and undecided can act only under the stimulus of present hope. The end they aim at must be visible before them all the time. If for a moment it passes out of view, their motive is gone, and they can do no more, till, by some change in circumstances, it comes in sight again.
VII/
Hannibal received them, but he was too sagacious to admit such a treacherous horde into his army. He treated them with great consideration and kindness, and dismissed them with presents, that they might all go to their respective homes, charging them to exert their influence in his favor among the tribes to which they severally belonged.
Napoleon used to say that one bad commander was better than two good ones, so essential is it to success in all military operations to secure that promptness, and confidence, and decision which can only exist where action is directed by one single mind.
IX/
I am sure that the true policy for us to adopt is the one which I marked out. That is always the proper course for the invaded to pursue with invaders, where there is the least doubt of the success of a battle. We grow strong while Hannibal grows continually weaker by delay. He can only prosper so long as he can fight battles and perform brilliant exploits. If we deprive him of this power, his strength will be continually wasting away, and the spirit and courage of his men waning. He has now scarce a third part of the army which he had when he crossed the Iberus, and nothing can save this remnant from destruction if we are wise."
XII/
War and commerce are the two great antagonistic principles which struggle for the mastery of the human race, the function of the one being to preserve, and that of the other to destroy. Commerce causes cities to be built and fields to be cultivated, and diffuses comfort and plenty, and all the blessings of industry and peace. It carries organization and order every where; it protects property and life; it disarms pestilence, and it prohibits famine. War, on the other hand, destroys. It disorganizes the social state. It ruins cities, depopulates fields, condemns men to idleness and want, and the only remedy it knows for the evils which it brings upon man is to shorten the miseries of its victims by giving pestilence and famine the most ample commision to destroy their lives. Thus war is the great enemy, while commerce is the great friend of humanity. They are antagonistic principles, contending continually for the mastery among all the organizations of men.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 8, 2019
This version of the history of Hannibal, the great Carthaginian general and conqueror which was written in the 19th century, is a real little gem and copyright free. Since my childhood the story of Hannibal crossing the Alps with elephants had fascinated me. So have the military campaigns and strategies of all the classic civilizations.
Unfortunately history is often (if not mostly) written and embellished by the conquerors and victors. And this may ring even more true during ancient times and times before writing, literacy or books became everyday tools. Until modern methods of archaeology prove or disprove theories, many "facts" should be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, a King's historian would record what the King wanted to hear or risk losing his head.
The beauty about this book lies in the way Jacob Abbott looked at it from the eyes of an observer of his own period. A period where much of the military strategy (and even weaponry) was still based on classic warfare of the years of, for example, the The First Punic War (B.C. 280-249).
In his preface he states: "The author of this series has made it his special object to confine himself very strictly, even in the most minute details which he records, to historic truth. The narratives are not tales founded upon history, but history itself, without any embellishment or any deviations from the strict truth, so far as it can now be discovered by an attentive examination of the annals written at the time when the events themselves occurred. In writing the narratives, the author has endeavored to avail himself of the best sources of information which this country affords; and though, of course, there must be in these volumes, as in all historical narratives, more or less of imperfection and error, there is no intentional embellishment. Nothing is stated, not even the most minute and apparently imaginary details, without what was deemed good historical authority. The readers, therefore, may rely upon the record as the truth, and nothing but the truth, so far as an honest purpose and a careful examination have been effectual in ascertaining it." - 1876
The book almost reads like a novel and comes with some beautiful engravings.
It was absolutely fascinating to read how Hannibal rose to power, his brilliant military mind, the incredible tactics which gave him victories against all odds, the insane risks he took such as crossing the Alps with Elephants! The bravery, the stupid mistakes all great Generals make eventually (Napoleon and his invasion of Russia come to mind), how he influenced the rise of the Roman Empire and how the Roman Empire may never even have existed if Hannibal had made different decisions during his campaigns. How one man's decisions on one single day can completely alter the history of the entirety of mankind!
Whether you agree with the historical accuracy of this book or not, it is a must read and worthy addition to your collection of historical books.
Unfortunately history is often (if not mostly) written and embellished by the conquerors and victors. And this may ring even more true during ancient times and times before writing, literacy or books became everyday tools. Until modern methods of archaeology prove or disprove theories, many "facts" should be taken with a pinch of salt. After all, a King's historian would record what the King wanted to hear or risk losing his head.
The beauty about this book lies in the way Jacob Abbott looked at it from the eyes of an observer of his own period. A period where much of the military strategy (and even weaponry) was still based on classic warfare of the years of, for example, the The First Punic War (B.C. 280-249).
In his preface he states: "The author of this series has made it his special object to confine himself very strictly, even in the most minute details which he records, to historic truth. The narratives are not tales founded upon history, but history itself, without any embellishment or any deviations from the strict truth, so far as it can now be discovered by an attentive examination of the annals written at the time when the events themselves occurred. In writing the narratives, the author has endeavored to avail himself of the best sources of information which this country affords; and though, of course, there must be in these volumes, as in all historical narratives, more or less of imperfection and error, there is no intentional embellishment. Nothing is stated, not even the most minute and apparently imaginary details, without what was deemed good historical authority. The readers, therefore, may rely upon the record as the truth, and nothing but the truth, so far as an honest purpose and a careful examination have been effectual in ascertaining it." - 1876
The book almost reads like a novel and comes with some beautiful engravings.
It was absolutely fascinating to read how Hannibal rose to power, his brilliant military mind, the incredible tactics which gave him victories against all odds, the insane risks he took such as crossing the Alps with Elephants! The bravery, the stupid mistakes all great Generals make eventually (Napoleon and his invasion of Russia come to mind), how he influenced the rise of the Roman Empire and how the Roman Empire may never even have existed if Hannibal had made different decisions during his campaigns. How one man's decisions on one single day can completely alter the history of the entirety of mankind!
Whether you agree with the historical accuracy of this book or not, it is a must read and worthy addition to your collection of historical books.
November 4, 2024
كتاب تاريخ هانيبال ... تعريب نعوم مكرزل ... 148 صفحه ... سنه 1923
انا من اسم الكتاب بحسبها روايه ولا حاجه بحسبها عن هانيبال المجرم الي بياكل الناس ده من الافلام والمسلاسلات ... بس طلع الكتاب تاريخي عن شخصيه حقيقيه ... الكتاب عجبني ولكن الشخصيه لا
ايه دوله قرطاجه دي موقعها فين يعني دلوقتي معرفهاش بس المؤلف او المترجم مش عارف مين الي كاتب الكتاب ده بس شكلو عربي يعني المفروض الدوله دي عربيه علي شواطئ البحر الابيض من جهه افريقيا علي حسب الي قراتو لحد دلوقتي وبعد قراتي لكتاب عمر المختار ان اظن انها ليبيا ... يعني روما ايطاليا دي معروفه وقرطاجه ليبيا ... لا اكتشفت انها تونس في الاخر ولكن زمان مكنش فيه حدود للدول زي دلوقتي يعني ممكن تكون تونس وليبيا معا
تمام حلو بحب انا الكتب التاريخيه ايا كانت ...
انا مش فاهم ايه الحلو في هانيبال مشهور علي ايه وايه الي مخليه اسطوره كده هو اي نعم كان مقاتل وقائد حلو في بلدو بس لما قرر يروح يهاجم الرومانيين ده كان غباء يعني يعدي البحر ويطلع الجبل ويموت يجي نص الجيش بتاعو في الفاضي وكده كده كان فيه حاله سلم بينهم وحتي الوفد الي جيه عشان يجدد السلم مشوهم من غير حاجه... انا كعدمي الي حد ما شايف ان كل الحروب والاوطان والاحزاب وكل الكلام ده عته وغباء مش شايف اي فخر ولا قوة ولا كبرياء في الحاجات دي شايفها كلها مزله وعبط وساديه صرفه
مع ان هانيبال كان من وجهه نظري مخطئ في غزو روميه وتعريض جنودو لكل المشاق دي ولكنو كان داهيه في الحروب والتخطيط يعني هو لو كان اهدافو واسبابو مقنعه كنت شجعتو وبقيت في صفو ولكن انا بشجع فابيوس لانو مش عايز حاجه غير انو يحمي بلدو وشعبو وكفي مضطر للقتال مش زي هانيبال يسعي للقتال .. ولكن متاكد ان برضو فابيوس بعد ما الاسباب الصحيحه تخلص هيبدا يغزو ويقتل للمتعه والفخر زيو زي اي واحد منهم تاني
هانيبال مهزوم شريد طريد ومنفي احسن احسن بعد ٢٥ سنه حروب ودمار وخراب وموت الاف ومئات الالف كل ده عشان ايه في الاخر كلو فشنك جاب لنفسو ولبلدو المزله والهزيمه وعجبني في الكاتب في الفصل ده انو محولوش يبرز هانيبال كبطل وانو كان صح كل الي عملو لا عادي قال ان حروبو كانت من غير مبرر وعلي عدو مبداش بالاذيه عليه عشان كده محدش يلوم الرومان انهم ظلو يطاردوه لحد نهايه حياته ويضروه انو ينتحر
تدمير قرطجنه .. اسدروبال برضو مفيش فايده زي هانيبال منظورو ضيق وفكرو عقيم وجاب الخراب والدمار للبلد بالكامل وبرضو البلد نفسها لما هي خلاص استسلمت وتناولت وسلمت الاسلحه رجعت تقاوم ليه تاني عشان تباد عن اخرها بالطريقه دي .. كان نفسي هانيبال يكون عايش ويشوف الخراب الي جابو لبلدو ..مع ان روميا يعني فشخت قرطجنه بطريقه بشعه بس مقدرش الومها لانها جابتو لنفسها ومكنتش هي الي بتبدا الحرب كل مره ولكن هي الي كانت بتنهيها .. الكاتب بيقول في الاخر ان هانيبال كان من اعظم قواد الحروب في التاريخ بس مش متفق معاه لان حتي لو انت كنت بتكسب في المعارك فطريقتك واسبابك هي الي تحدد عظمتك المفروض انا محبتش هانيبال خالص الصراحه في النهايه
الكتاب حلو جدا استمتعت بيه علي الرغم من النهايه المأساويه ولكن تم ✅
انا من اسم الكتاب بحسبها روايه ولا حاجه بحسبها عن هانيبال المجرم الي بياكل الناس ده من الافلام والمسلاسلات ... بس طلع الكتاب تاريخي عن شخصيه حقيقيه ... الكتاب عجبني ولكن الشخصيه لا
ايه دوله قرطاجه دي موقعها فين يعني دلوقتي معرفهاش بس المؤلف او المترجم مش عارف مين الي كاتب الكتاب ده بس شكلو عربي يعني المفروض الدوله دي عربيه علي شواطئ البحر الابيض من جهه افريقيا علي حسب الي قراتو لحد دلوقتي وبعد قراتي لكتاب عمر المختار ان اظن انها ليبيا ... يعني روما ايطاليا دي معروفه وقرطاجه ليبيا ... لا اكتشفت انها تونس في الاخر ولكن زمان مكنش فيه حدود للدول زي دلوقتي يعني ممكن تكون تونس وليبيا معا
تمام حلو بحب انا الكتب التاريخيه ايا كانت ...
انا مش فاهم ايه الحلو في هانيبال مشهور علي ايه وايه الي مخليه اسطوره كده هو اي نعم كان مقاتل وقائد حلو في بلدو بس لما قرر يروح يهاجم الرومانيين ده كان غباء يعني يعدي البحر ويطلع الجبل ويموت يجي نص الجيش بتاعو في الفاضي وكده كده كان فيه حاله سلم بينهم وحتي الوفد الي جيه عشان يجدد السلم مشوهم من غير حاجه... انا كعدمي الي حد ما شايف ان كل الحروب والاوطان والاحزاب وكل الكلام ده عته وغباء مش شايف اي فخر ولا قوة ولا كبرياء في الحاجات دي شايفها كلها مزله وعبط وساديه صرفه
مع ان هانيبال كان من وجهه نظري مخطئ في غزو روميه وتعريض جنودو لكل المشاق دي ولكنو كان داهيه في الحروب والتخطيط يعني هو لو كان اهدافو واسبابو مقنعه كنت شجعتو وبقيت في صفو ولكن انا بشجع فابيوس لانو مش عايز حاجه غير انو يحمي بلدو وشعبو وكفي مضطر للقتال مش زي هانيبال يسعي للقتال .. ولكن متاكد ان برضو فابيوس بعد ما الاسباب الصحيحه تخلص هيبدا يغزو ويقتل للمتعه والفخر زيو زي اي واحد منهم تاني
هانيبال مهزوم شريد طريد ومنفي احسن احسن بعد ٢٥ سنه حروب ودمار وخراب وموت الاف ومئات الالف كل ده عشان ايه في الاخر كلو فشنك جاب لنفسو ولبلدو المزله والهزيمه وعجبني في الكاتب في الفصل ده انو محولوش يبرز هانيبال كبطل وانو كان صح كل الي عملو لا عادي قال ان حروبو كانت من غير مبرر وعلي عدو مبداش بالاذيه عليه عشان كده محدش يلوم الرومان انهم ظلو يطاردوه لحد نهايه حياته ويضروه انو ينتحر
تدمير قرطجنه .. اسدروبال برضو مفيش فايده زي هانيبال منظورو ضيق وفكرو عقيم وجاب الخراب والدمار للبلد بالكامل وبرضو البلد نفسها لما هي خلاص استسلمت وتناولت وسلمت الاسلحه رجعت تقاوم ليه تاني عشان تباد عن اخرها بالطريقه دي .. كان نفسي هانيبال يكون عايش ويشوف الخراب الي جابو لبلدو ..مع ان روميا يعني فشخت قرطجنه بطريقه بشعه بس مقدرش الومها لانها جابتو لنفسها ومكنتش هي الي بتبدا الحرب كل مره ولكن هي الي كانت بتنهيها .. الكاتب بيقول في الاخر ان هانيبال كان من اعظم قواد الحروب في التاريخ بس مش متفق معاه لان حتي لو انت كنت بتكسب في المعارك فطريقتك واسبابك هي الي تحدد عظمتك المفروض انا محبتش هانيبال خالص الصراحه في النهايه
الكتاب حلو جدا استمتعت بيه علي الرغم من النهايه المأساويه ولكن تم ✅
June 27, 2024
I was really occupied on learning of the history of the punic wars for quite sometime and it was epic. The adventures and the difficulties that have faced Hannibal Barca and how he handle them shows how much sagacity he has as a general and how charismatic of a leader he is. Although i think this book can not be enough to fully understand Hannibal’s tactics and strategies with all roman consuls and the second punic war but it gives a general idea of what has happened. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the book quit a lot, but i was not sure weather the book was supposed to be a summary of Hannibal highlights or a book that it is trying to tell the full story. if it was the former, a 4 stars is worth it. I would recommend this book for those who want to know Hannibal.
January 14, 2025
While not as well written as his Alexander book, this is still very good for the average reader. Though he pales in comparison to any proper historian of the era. He explains all the events faithfully but his criticism of Hannibal is, for the lack of a better word, overly vitriolic. He comments on Hannibal, greatest of the Carthaginians by his exploits, as a warmongering maniac. It would not have surprised me if he had finished the book by saying "carthago delenda est!".
Overall it's a good book, especially for the casual reader even with its salty parts, no pun intended.
Overall it's a good book, especially for the casual reader even with its salty parts, no pun intended.
September 10, 2018
This book does not do justice to his personality, and lacked in description of battles and political landscape of the time
October 8, 2019
A good introduction to Hannibal. I recommend this book if you want to know the basics about Hannibal.
February 6, 2024
An enjoyable historical count of the life and the strategic wars back in the days of Hannibal, Carthage and Alexander the Great...!
September 12, 2016
I'm certainly not disappointed that I read "Hannibal" by Jacob Abbott but I did find some areas of it disappointing. My expectations may have been a bit high as far as what I was expecting from this book but I found its amount of detail in many of the battles underwhelming. The book just didn't contain much detail, at all, even regarding other items.
It may have been this edition of the book but I found the lack of any type of bibliography very disappointing. I assume that Mr. Abbott received much of the information for this book from the writings of Titus Livius but he only once even mentioned Livy (English spelling of his surname) in the writing. I believe a writer should always give thanks to the other writers with which he received his information, even if that writer has been dead for two thousand years.
That being said, this book is a pretty excellent introduction to Hannibal and the Punic Wars. I did appreciate that Mr. Abbott provided some information regarding the first and third Punic Wars which happened before and after Hannibal's control of the army, respectively. I found this information to be a great addition to the book. I would recommend it to someone looking for an introduction to Hannibal and the Punic Wars.
It may have been this edition of the book but I found the lack of any type of bibliography very disappointing. I assume that Mr. Abbott received much of the information for this book from the writings of Titus Livius but he only once even mentioned Livy (English spelling of his surname) in the writing. I believe a writer should always give thanks to the other writers with which he received his information, even if that writer has been dead for two thousand years.
That being said, this book is a pretty excellent introduction to Hannibal and the Punic Wars. I did appreciate that Mr. Abbott provided some information regarding the first and third Punic Wars which happened before and after Hannibal's control of the army, respectively. I found this information to be a great addition to the book. I would recommend it to someone looking for an introduction to Hannibal and the Punic Wars.
August 10, 2019
“It is hardly probable that Hannibal could have really and honestly felt all the confidence that he expressed in his harangues to his soldiers. He must have had some fears. In fact, in all enterprises undertaken by man, the indications of success, and the hopes based upon them, will fluctuate from time to time, and cause his confidence in the result to ebb and flow, so that bright anticipations of success and triumph will alternate in his heart with feelings of discouragement and despondency. This effect is experienced by all; by the energetic and decided as well as by the timid and the faltering. The former, however, never allow these fluctuations of hope and fear to influence their action. They consider well the substantial grounds for expecting success before commencing their undertaking, and then go steadily forward, under all aspects of the sky—when it shines and when it rains—till they reach the end. The inefficient and undecided can act only under the stimulus of present hope. The end they aim at must be visible before them all the time. If for a moment it passes out of view, their motive is gone, and they can do no more, till, by some change in circumstances, it comes in sight again.” - Hannibal, by Jacob Abbott
January 17, 2017
The thinking of the nineteenth century was very anti-Carthage. Abbott has that prejudice, a lot of what he says about Carthage are based on Roman sources who were trying to put Carthage in a bad light. Abbott is very inaccurate about Hannibal. For a great biography on Hannibal you should check out Richard A. Gabriel's book on Hannibal.
Merged review:
The thinking of the nineteenth century was very anti-Carthage. Abbott has that prejudice, a lot of what he says about Carthage are based on Roman sources who were trying to put Carthage in a bad light. Abbott is very inaccurate about Hannibal. For a great biography on Hannibal you should check out Richard A. Gabriel's book on Hannibal.
Merged review:
The thinking of the nineteenth century was very anti-Carthage. Abbott has that prejudice, a lot of what he says about Carthage are based on Roman sources who were trying to put Carthage in a bad light. Abbott is very inaccurate about Hannibal. For a great biography on Hannibal you should check out Richard A. Gabriel's book on Hannibal.
January 26, 2021
I went into this book knowing close to nothing about Hannibal and I think it gave a great introduction to this historic military leader. I liked how it weaved in a bunch of small stories about Hannibal being cunning and tricking his enemies. These stories really helped show what Hannibal's personality was and made the book more interesting. Even Hannibal calling himself the third-best military leader that ever lived and how he would have been the best if it wasn't for Scipio, was great for showing how prideful Hannibal was.
December 31, 2022
لا اعلم هل لأنني قد قرأت سابقا (ملحمة قرطاجة :هميلقار هنيبعل – حدروبال) لم استشعر أي فائدة من هذا العمل على الاطلاق
ام بالفعل هذا العمل يفتقر للكثير
عملنا هذا بعيدا عن الترجمة التي لم تكن في افضل حالاتها من وجهة نظري لكن أيضا يوجد مشكله كبيره في طريقة السرد من وجهة نظري لم يفلح ان يكون كتاب تاريخي ولم يفلح ان يكون رواية يتم حكيها.
في كل الأحوال اذا أراد شخصا استكشاف تاريخ قرطاجة حاضرة فينيقيا الجديدة فارشح الكتاب السابق ذكره وليس هذا العمل
ام بالفعل هذا العمل يفتقر للكثير
عملنا هذا بعيدا عن الترجمة التي لم تكن في افضل حالاتها من وجهة نظري لكن أيضا يوجد مشكله كبيره في طريقة السرد من وجهة نظري لم يفلح ان يكون كتاب تاريخي ولم يفلح ان يكون رواية يتم حكيها.
في كل الأحوال اذا أراد شخصا استكشاف تاريخ قرطاجة حاضرة فينيقيا الجديدة فارشح الكتاب السابق ذكره وليس هذا العمل
August 11, 2016
A simplistic but entertaining history of the life of Hannibal and the major events of the second Punic war. Abbott's excitable prose style and charming 19th century vocabulary hold your attention, even, or especially, when it strays into unintentional comedy. His exuberant description of the Alps is a highlight.
August 14, 2020
This is a good narrative history of Hannibal and the 2nd Punic War.
It was disappointing and distracting when the author went on a side rant about the foolish spiritual beliefs of the Romans. This didn't add to the story, nor does it allow the child to evaluate the ancient actions on their own.
We may use this, but may not.
It was disappointing and distracting when the author went on a side rant about the foolish spiritual beliefs of the Romans. This didn't add to the story, nor does it allow the child to evaluate the ancient actions on their own.
We may use this, but may not.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews