What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic
A stirring account of the most influential battle in history: For millennia, Carthage's triumph over Rome at Cannae in 216 BCE has inspired reverent awe. It was the battle that countless armies tried to imitate, most notably in World Wars I & II, the battle that obsessed military minds. Yet no general ever matched Hannibal's unexpected, innovative & brutal military victory--the costliest day of combat for any army in history. Robert L. O'Connell, an admired military historian, now tells the whole story of Cannae, giving a stirring account of this apocalyptic battle of the 2nd Punic War, its causes & consequences.
O'Connell shows how a restive Rome amassed a giant army to punish Carthage's commander, who'd dealt them deadly blows at Trebia & Lake Trasimene, & how Hannibal outwitted enemies that outnumbered him. He describes Hannibal's strategy of blinding his opponents with sun & dust, enveloping them in a deadly embrace & sealing their escape, before launching a massive knife fight that would kill 48,000 men in close contact. The Ghosts of Cannae then conveys how this disastrous pivot point in Rome's history ultimately led to the republic's resurgence & the creation of its empire.
Piecing together decayed shreds of ancient reportage, the author paints powerful portraits of the leading players: Hannibal, resolutely sane & uncannily strategic; Varro, Rome's co-consul scapegoated for the loss; & Scipio Africanus, the surviving, self-promoting Roman military tribune who would one day pay back Hannibal at Zama in N. Africa. Finally, O'Connell reveals how Cannae's legend has inspired & haunted military leaders ever since, & the lessons it teaches. Superbly researched, written with erudite wit, The Ghosts of Cannae is the definitive account of a battle whose history still resonates.
O'Connell shows how a restive Rome amassed a giant army to punish Carthage's commander, who'd dealt them deadly blows at Trebia & Lake Trasimene, & how Hannibal outwitted enemies that outnumbered him. He describes Hannibal's strategy of blinding his opponents with sun & dust, enveloping them in a deadly embrace & sealing their escape, before launching a massive knife fight that would kill 48,000 men in close contact. The Ghosts of Cannae then conveys how this disastrous pivot point in Rome's history ultimately led to the republic's resurgence & the creation of its empire.
Piecing together decayed shreds of ancient reportage, the author paints powerful portraits of the leading players: Hannibal, resolutely sane & uncannily strategic; Varro, Rome's co-consul scapegoated for the loss; & Scipio Africanus, the surviving, self-promoting Roman military tribune who would one day pay back Hannibal at Zama in N. Africa. Finally, O'Connell reveals how Cannae's legend has inspired & haunted military leaders ever since, & the lessons it teaches. Superbly researched, written with erudite wit, The Ghosts of Cannae is the definitive account of a battle whose history still resonates.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published July 13, 2010
254 people are currently reading
5588 people want to read
About the author
Robert L. O'Connell
16 books67 followersRobert L. O'Connell is an American historian, intelligence analyst, and author known for his thought-provoking works on war, weaponry, and human aggression. With a career spanning both public service and academia, he spent three decades as an intelligence analyst at the National Ground Intelligence Center and later served as a visiting professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School.
O'Connell's books blend historical insight with philosophical inquiry. His acclaimed works include Of Arms and Men, Sacred Vessels, and Ride of the Second Horseman, each exploring the evolution of warfare and its roots in human behavior. He also authored the illustrated volume Soul of the Sword and ventured into fiction with Fast Eddie: A Novel in Many Voices.
Driven by a lifelong passion for storytelling, O'Connell has described his writing process as a trance-like state where ideas seem to flow from an external source. Whether writing history or fiction, his work reflects a deep engagement with the human condition through the lens of conflict and creativity.
O'Connell's books blend historical insight with philosophical inquiry. His acclaimed works include Of Arms and Men, Sacred Vessels, and Ride of the Second Horseman, each exploring the evolution of warfare and its roots in human behavior. He also authored the illustrated volume Soul of the Sword and ventured into fiction with Fast Eddie: A Novel in Many Voices.
Driven by a lifelong passion for storytelling, O'Connell has described his writing process as a trance-like state where ideas seem to flow from an external source. Whether writing history or fiction, his work reflects a deep engagement with the human condition through the lens of conflict and creativity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 265 reviews
April 26, 2016
Think of things that are the “greatest.” And by greatest, I don’t mean objectively; rather, I mean in a word association sense. You hear the phrase “the greatest ____” and what pops into your mind?
Greatest movie: Citizen Kane. Greatest book: War and Peace. Greatest wall: China. Greatest escape: the one perpetrated by Steve McQueen and James Garner in The Great Escape.
Greatest battle?
That would be Cannae.
Cannae is the white whale of battles. Famous generals spent their entire lives trying to recreate its lethally complete results. If you read Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: A Narrative, you will notice that the battle is mentioned repeatedly, as various commanders attempted to recreate Cannae’s crowning feature: the near-mythical double envelopment.
At Cannae, the Carthaginian mastermind Hannibal (like Brazilian soccer stars, great Carthaginian commanders are known by only one name) intentionally weakened the center of his army, inviting the Romans under Varro and Paullus to commit all their troops at that point. As Hannibal’s center gave way, his troops on the flanks turned inward to press the Romans from the sides. Meanwhile, Hannibal’s cavalry swept around the Roman flanks and came at the Romans from the rear.
A good way to picture the battle is to imagine a snowball. Next, imagine yourself squeezing that snowball until it breaks apart and melts in your hand. The Romans were that snowball.
Now, I don’t know a whole lot about Roman history. All I know is that there was a guy named Julius Caesar, he crossed a river and got stabbed in the back; later, Russell Crowe saved Rome and turned it back into a Republic. I’m pretty sure that most of that didn’t happen.
Robert O’Connell’s Ghosts of Cannae is a good book for a person like me. It’s not exactly The Punic Wars For Dummies, but it’s written for people who aren’t classical scholars. It’s a slim volume, at less than 400 pages, and is written in a brisk, conversational style. There is a dramatis personae at the beginning, so you can better keep track of all the complicated, three-part Roman names (Russia has nothing on Rome when it comes to making it difficult to tell people apart). There are also several maps, to help you orient yourself to the geography, though as O’Connell notes, no one is certain where the battle of Cannae actually took place. The only thing I would have added would be a timeline, so I could’ve placed the Second Punic War in a better overall context vis-à-vis the rest of Rome’s history. (Again, all I knew coming in was Julius Caesar and Gladiator, which meant that 50% of my knowledge was absolutely false and gleaned from arguably the worst film to ever win a Best Picture Oscar).
This is a book that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Or more precisely, it’s so serious that it goes to great lengths pretending not to be serious. Obviously, O’Connell is well-read and learned about his subject. He is able to explain events, parse his sources, and make informed guesses to fill the huge gaps in the historical record. In other words, he’s a classics nerd. However, his prose tries to convince you that he’s actually a cool dude, and is probably on the quad right now playing ultimate Frisbee. I would liken O’Connell and his writing style to a cross between your favorite grad-school professor and a dad making jokes to the friends of his teenage son or daughter. When he talks about Hannibal’s elephants, he alliteratively describes the “pachyderm pandemonium.” The Roman legions aren’t simply ready to fight, they’re “ready to rumble.” (I’m sure Michael Buffer’s lawyer will be contacting him). It’s pretty lame, to be sure, but all true fans of history have probably been inured at this point to any accusations of lameness.
The scope of this book encompasses the entire Second Punic War. It begins with a brisk and helpful overview of the war’s origins, before shifting to Hannibal and his legendary crossing of the Alps. True to this book’s form as a not-too-technical retelling of a very old event, O’Connell doesn’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out where, exactly, Hannibal crossed. It suffices for the book’s purpose to give a couple options before noting that there is a controversy. The central event, of course, is Cannae itself, which is sufficiently graphic to give you some idea of what a massive knife fight might have been like. My only criticism is that I would’ve liked him to quote Polybius and Livy a bit more. O’Connell is always alluding to their telling of the story, as they are the two best sources, and it would’ve been nice to read exactly what they wrote. The final third of Ghosts of Cannae follows Scipio Africanus, a survivor of Cannae who eventually returns to Africa and metes out terrible vengeance on the Carthaginians. (You may recall the salting of the earth, Tacitus’s observation that “they made a wasteland and called it peace,” etc.) Scipio’s victorious army was made up in part of the shamed survivors of Cannae, a legion that had been exiled to Sicily and forced to winter hundreds of miles from the nearest towns. These men were the so-called “ghosts of Cannae.”
Bad jokes aside, I can’t find much fault with Ghosts. The only thing that troubles me about this time period – and this isn’t a fault of O’Connell’s work – is that it’s so sketchily documented. There are no first-hand accounts. The best we have are first-hand accounts of writers who looked at accounts containing first-hand accounts. With that consideration, I would’ve appreciated O’Connell being a little more critical of certain aspects of Cannae, especially the battlefield casualties. On several occasions, O’Connell states that Cannae was the deadliest day in Western history, and that its casualty figures exceeded the Somme. I really doubt it. I don’t think it’s physically or mentally possible for humans to slaughter each other in those numbers using only swords and spears in the timeframe given. Interestingly, even though O’Connell cites Dave Grossman’s invaluable work in On Killing, he doesn’t seem to agree with Grossman’s strongly-sourced conclusion that humans have an aversion to killing that increases as the temporal proximity between opponents decreases. (In other words, it’s far easier for an artilleryman to do his job than for a frontline rifleman).
I only mention that because my biggest pet peeve is historians who aren’t critical of their sources. That’s a personal issue though, one that I should probably take up with my therapist, rather than on a Goodreads review.
Greatest movie: Citizen Kane. Greatest book: War and Peace. Greatest wall: China. Greatest escape: the one perpetrated by Steve McQueen and James Garner in The Great Escape.
Greatest battle?
That would be Cannae.
Cannae is the white whale of battles. Famous generals spent their entire lives trying to recreate its lethally complete results. If you read Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: A Narrative, you will notice that the battle is mentioned repeatedly, as various commanders attempted to recreate Cannae’s crowning feature: the near-mythical double envelopment.
At Cannae, the Carthaginian mastermind Hannibal (like Brazilian soccer stars, great Carthaginian commanders are known by only one name) intentionally weakened the center of his army, inviting the Romans under Varro and Paullus to commit all their troops at that point. As Hannibal’s center gave way, his troops on the flanks turned inward to press the Romans from the sides. Meanwhile, Hannibal’s cavalry swept around the Roman flanks and came at the Romans from the rear.
A good way to picture the battle is to imagine a snowball. Next, imagine yourself squeezing that snowball until it breaks apart and melts in your hand. The Romans were that snowball.
Now, I don’t know a whole lot about Roman history. All I know is that there was a guy named Julius Caesar, he crossed a river and got stabbed in the back; later, Russell Crowe saved Rome and turned it back into a Republic. I’m pretty sure that most of that didn’t happen.
Robert O’Connell’s Ghosts of Cannae is a good book for a person like me. It’s not exactly The Punic Wars For Dummies, but it’s written for people who aren’t classical scholars. It’s a slim volume, at less than 400 pages, and is written in a brisk, conversational style. There is a dramatis personae at the beginning, so you can better keep track of all the complicated, three-part Roman names (Russia has nothing on Rome when it comes to making it difficult to tell people apart). There are also several maps, to help you orient yourself to the geography, though as O’Connell notes, no one is certain where the battle of Cannae actually took place. The only thing I would have added would be a timeline, so I could’ve placed the Second Punic War in a better overall context vis-à-vis the rest of Rome’s history. (Again, all I knew coming in was Julius Caesar and Gladiator, which meant that 50% of my knowledge was absolutely false and gleaned from arguably the worst film to ever win a Best Picture Oscar).
This is a book that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Or more precisely, it’s so serious that it goes to great lengths pretending not to be serious. Obviously, O’Connell is well-read and learned about his subject. He is able to explain events, parse his sources, and make informed guesses to fill the huge gaps in the historical record. In other words, he’s a classics nerd. However, his prose tries to convince you that he’s actually a cool dude, and is probably on the quad right now playing ultimate Frisbee. I would liken O’Connell and his writing style to a cross between your favorite grad-school professor and a dad making jokes to the friends of his teenage son or daughter. When he talks about Hannibal’s elephants, he alliteratively describes the “pachyderm pandemonium.” The Roman legions aren’t simply ready to fight, they’re “ready to rumble.” (I’m sure Michael Buffer’s lawyer will be contacting him). It’s pretty lame, to be sure, but all true fans of history have probably been inured at this point to any accusations of lameness.
The scope of this book encompasses the entire Second Punic War. It begins with a brisk and helpful overview of the war’s origins, before shifting to Hannibal and his legendary crossing of the Alps. True to this book’s form as a not-too-technical retelling of a very old event, O’Connell doesn’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out where, exactly, Hannibal crossed. It suffices for the book’s purpose to give a couple options before noting that there is a controversy. The central event, of course, is Cannae itself, which is sufficiently graphic to give you some idea of what a massive knife fight might have been like. My only criticism is that I would’ve liked him to quote Polybius and Livy a bit more. O’Connell is always alluding to their telling of the story, as they are the two best sources, and it would’ve been nice to read exactly what they wrote. The final third of Ghosts of Cannae follows Scipio Africanus, a survivor of Cannae who eventually returns to Africa and metes out terrible vengeance on the Carthaginians. (You may recall the salting of the earth, Tacitus’s observation that “they made a wasteland and called it peace,” etc.) Scipio’s victorious army was made up in part of the shamed survivors of Cannae, a legion that had been exiled to Sicily and forced to winter hundreds of miles from the nearest towns. These men were the so-called “ghosts of Cannae.”
Bad jokes aside, I can’t find much fault with Ghosts. The only thing that troubles me about this time period – and this isn’t a fault of O’Connell’s work – is that it’s so sketchily documented. There are no first-hand accounts. The best we have are first-hand accounts of writers who looked at accounts containing first-hand accounts. With that consideration, I would’ve appreciated O’Connell being a little more critical of certain aspects of Cannae, especially the battlefield casualties. On several occasions, O’Connell states that Cannae was the deadliest day in Western history, and that its casualty figures exceeded the Somme. I really doubt it. I don’t think it’s physically or mentally possible for humans to slaughter each other in those numbers using only swords and spears in the timeframe given. Interestingly, even though O’Connell cites Dave Grossman’s invaluable work in On Killing, he doesn’t seem to agree with Grossman’s strongly-sourced conclusion that humans have an aversion to killing that increases as the temporal proximity between opponents decreases. (In other words, it’s far easier for an artilleryman to do his job than for a frontline rifleman).
I only mention that because my biggest pet peeve is historians who aren’t critical of their sources. That’s a personal issue though, one that I should probably take up with my therapist, rather than on a Goodreads review.
August 31, 2012
Hannibal’s Ghost
I’m off on a trip to Tunisia at the beginning of October, my first to the North African country. There are various reasons I want to go, among the uppermost is to stand among the stones of Carthage.
Of course this is Roman Carthage, not the Punic city. That was completely obliterated in 146BC in one of the most complete acts of vindictive retribution in all of history. Carthego delenda est – Carthage must be destroyed – Cato the Elder was in the habit of saying to the point of absurdity; and it was, completely. It was re-founded a hundred years later, a ghost of the past.
Speaking of ghosts, if you want to know why the Romans behaved with such malice you could do no better than turn to The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic by Robert L O’Connell, an American military historian.
That’s it in a word or, rather, in a name – Hannibal, one of the greatest generals and tacticians in history, the nemesis of Rome, a name fearful enough to send the city’s children scurrying to their beds, least he come. He came alright; he came in the summer of 216 to the battlefield of Cannae in southern Italy, there inflicting in a single day a defeat and a human tragedy unmatched in all of military history.
Perhaps you think that an exaggeration, just a flight of hyperbole? Then I would just ask you to consider this sombre fact. Fifty thousand Romans died on that day in August, twice as many as the British soldiers killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, during the height of a mechanised war.
Although O’Connell rightly refuses to dwell on what he refers to as the “pornography of violence” there are enough hints to give one a picture of that terrible day, “If it is possible to conceive of hell on earth, this human abattoir at Cannae must have been equal of any hell that history in all of its perversity has managed to concoct.” The thing about Cannae is that it was the kind of encounter that victorious generals dream of – a battle of total encirclement. Neither able to advance nor retreat, the Romans could only stand and die.
The Ghosts of Cannae is about much more than this seminal battle which acts as a centrepiece. More broadly it paints a picture of the entire course of the Second Punic War, part two of a three round bout, when the two giants of the ancient world slugged it out for dominance in the Western Mediterranean. It tells the story of some commanding personalities, not just of Hannibal, the most commanding of all, but of Publius Cornelius Scipio, eventually to be honoured with the name of Africanus, his nemesis.
As I said above, the author is a military historian, and as military history The Ghosts of Cannae excels in so many regards. But he is not narrowly focused in the way that makes so much of this field hopelessly one-dimensional. Cannae and the events of the Second Punic War are given a far greater political significance in the evolution of the Roman Republic. It’s the beginning of the eclipse of the Senate and the system of Consular authority. In times to come Roman armies would look to their commanders to protect their interests, not the institutions of the Republic.
Scipio, I was fascinated to discover, was the first man in Roman history to take the title of ‘imperator’, less politically loaded than ‘king’ with which his Spanish allies wished to honour him. In the end it might very well be said that Hannibal did succeed in his aim of destroying the Roman Republic. Scipio, you see, is the beginning of a succession, one that works through Sulla on through Caesar finally maturing with Augustus. In the end Imperator was a far more potent title than mere King.
Although the Second Punic War is really Hannibal’s War, although he transformed what was essentially a naval into a land-based power, and although he won some startling victories, culminating in the masterpiece of Cannae, for me the real hero of The Ghosts of Cannae is Scipio. In the end he proved himself to be the better tactician and the better soldier. But most important of all he proved himself to be the better strategist and the better politician.
The paradox is that for Hannibal Cannae, his great battle of annihilation, was little better than a defeat, at least in practical terms. He failed to exploit his victory; he failed to march on Rome. For years after he was to move impotently in ever decreasing circles in southern Italy, while Scipio took the war to Spain and eventually to Africa. Hannibal’s was the greatest triumph and the greatest missed opportunity in all of history.
It’s gripping history grippingly told, in prose that is racy and exciting but delivered without loss of proper academic focus. That’s the thing; history does not need to be dry; history is the most exciting and rewarding area of study, even if one is only looking for simple entertainment. The author uses the available sources, particularly Polybius and Livy, to great effect in a study that I found largely commendable.
Largely? Yes, I do have a few criticisms. I think the maps let the book down badly. With this kind of thing one really needs more detail. The Cannae maps were fair enough, if basic, though those dealing with the Spanish theatre served merely as a outline. And why, oh why was there no map of the Battle of Zama, where Hannibal and Scipio met face to face?
The bigger problem for me comes with the lacunae in the sources, gaps which the author fills with speculative ‘musts’: there must have been he must have thought and on and on. No, no, no. How that sort of thing drives me mad. If one has no evidence please must me no musts!
I was a little surprised that the epilogue, dealing with the significance of Cannae in military thinking and history, made no mention of Stalingrad, the most significant battle of encirclement and annihilation in the modern age. It did not escape the attention of German officers caught in the Russian trap that their commander was called Paulus, just as one of the joint commanders killed at Cannae was Lucius Aemiliius Paullus. It’s little coincidences like these that give the story an added piquancy.
If this book has a lesson, and it assuredly does, it’s one that soldiers would do well to take heed. It’s this: war really is politics by other means. Hannibal, for all his brilliance as a commander, never understood that fundamental truth. Tactics, quite simply, is never enough. If that needs to be driven home then we only have to think of Afghanistan.
I’m off on a trip to Tunisia at the beginning of October, my first to the North African country. There are various reasons I want to go, among the uppermost is to stand among the stones of Carthage.
Of course this is Roman Carthage, not the Punic city. That was completely obliterated in 146BC in one of the most complete acts of vindictive retribution in all of history. Carthego delenda est – Carthage must be destroyed – Cato the Elder was in the habit of saying to the point of absurdity; and it was, completely. It was re-founded a hundred years later, a ghost of the past.
Speaking of ghosts, if you want to know why the Romans behaved with such malice you could do no better than turn to The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic by Robert L O’Connell, an American military historian.
That’s it in a word or, rather, in a name – Hannibal, one of the greatest generals and tacticians in history, the nemesis of Rome, a name fearful enough to send the city’s children scurrying to their beds, least he come. He came alright; he came in the summer of 216 to the battlefield of Cannae in southern Italy, there inflicting in a single day a defeat and a human tragedy unmatched in all of military history.
Perhaps you think that an exaggeration, just a flight of hyperbole? Then I would just ask you to consider this sombre fact. Fifty thousand Romans died on that day in August, twice as many as the British soldiers killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, during the height of a mechanised war.
Although O’Connell rightly refuses to dwell on what he refers to as the “pornography of violence” there are enough hints to give one a picture of that terrible day, “If it is possible to conceive of hell on earth, this human abattoir at Cannae must have been equal of any hell that history in all of its perversity has managed to concoct.” The thing about Cannae is that it was the kind of encounter that victorious generals dream of – a battle of total encirclement. Neither able to advance nor retreat, the Romans could only stand and die.
The Ghosts of Cannae is about much more than this seminal battle which acts as a centrepiece. More broadly it paints a picture of the entire course of the Second Punic War, part two of a three round bout, when the two giants of the ancient world slugged it out for dominance in the Western Mediterranean. It tells the story of some commanding personalities, not just of Hannibal, the most commanding of all, but of Publius Cornelius Scipio, eventually to be honoured with the name of Africanus, his nemesis.
As I said above, the author is a military historian, and as military history The Ghosts of Cannae excels in so many regards. But he is not narrowly focused in the way that makes so much of this field hopelessly one-dimensional. Cannae and the events of the Second Punic War are given a far greater political significance in the evolution of the Roman Republic. It’s the beginning of the eclipse of the Senate and the system of Consular authority. In times to come Roman armies would look to their commanders to protect their interests, not the institutions of the Republic.
Scipio, I was fascinated to discover, was the first man in Roman history to take the title of ‘imperator’, less politically loaded than ‘king’ with which his Spanish allies wished to honour him. In the end it might very well be said that Hannibal did succeed in his aim of destroying the Roman Republic. Scipio, you see, is the beginning of a succession, one that works through Sulla on through Caesar finally maturing with Augustus. In the end Imperator was a far more potent title than mere King.
Although the Second Punic War is really Hannibal’s War, although he transformed what was essentially a naval into a land-based power, and although he won some startling victories, culminating in the masterpiece of Cannae, for me the real hero of The Ghosts of Cannae is Scipio. In the end he proved himself to be the better tactician and the better soldier. But most important of all he proved himself to be the better strategist and the better politician.
The paradox is that for Hannibal Cannae, his great battle of annihilation, was little better than a defeat, at least in practical terms. He failed to exploit his victory; he failed to march on Rome. For years after he was to move impotently in ever decreasing circles in southern Italy, while Scipio took the war to Spain and eventually to Africa. Hannibal’s was the greatest triumph and the greatest missed opportunity in all of history.
It’s gripping history grippingly told, in prose that is racy and exciting but delivered without loss of proper academic focus. That’s the thing; history does not need to be dry; history is the most exciting and rewarding area of study, even if one is only looking for simple entertainment. The author uses the available sources, particularly Polybius and Livy, to great effect in a study that I found largely commendable.
Largely? Yes, I do have a few criticisms. I think the maps let the book down badly. With this kind of thing one really needs more detail. The Cannae maps were fair enough, if basic, though those dealing with the Spanish theatre served merely as a outline. And why, oh why was there no map of the Battle of Zama, where Hannibal and Scipio met face to face?
The bigger problem for me comes with the lacunae in the sources, gaps which the author fills with speculative ‘musts’: there must have been he must have thought and on and on. No, no, no. How that sort of thing drives me mad. If one has no evidence please must me no musts!
I was a little surprised that the epilogue, dealing with the significance of Cannae in military thinking and history, made no mention of Stalingrad, the most significant battle of encirclement and annihilation in the modern age. It did not escape the attention of German officers caught in the Russian trap that their commander was called Paulus, just as one of the joint commanders killed at Cannae was Lucius Aemiliius Paullus. It’s little coincidences like these that give the story an added piquancy.
If this book has a lesson, and it assuredly does, it’s one that soldiers would do well to take heed. It’s this: war really is politics by other means. Hannibal, for all his brilliance as a commander, never understood that fundamental truth. Tactics, quite simply, is never enough. If that needs to be driven home then we only have to think of Afghanistan.
November 21, 2025
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Review of The Ghosts of Cannae by Robert O’Connell
Yes, as many of you know, I’m a bit obsessed with ancient Roman history. That spark really took hold during the summer of 2024, when I helped supervise a trip to Italy with my son’s Italian class. We spent a few unforgettable days in Rome, taking in all the major sights. It was an amazing experience that deepened my fascination with Roman history, and since then I’ve been diving into every book I can find—especially on the Punic Wars, which I find absolutely riveting.
That brings me to The Ghosts of Cannae by Robert O’Connell. I stumbled upon this book at an incredible community book sale—an untouched first edition for just $2.00! What a treasure. And what a read.
O’Connell is a master storyteller and military historian. His descriptions of the Battle of Cannae are vivid and powerful, full of drama and insight. ( He can be a bit Cheeky too!) He writes with real gusto, giving life not just to the clash itself, but to the larger context of the Second Punic War. I’ve already worked through Adrian Goldsworthy’s monumental The Punic Wars and am nearly finished with his shorter volume on Cannae, but O’Connell brings something different: a sweeping, accessible, and deeply human take on this pivotal moment in history.
I especially enjoyed O’Connell’s exploration of Scipio Africanus. I’ve long admired Scipio, and it was eye-opening to learn more about how little reverence he received from the Roman Senate, despite his brilliance. The shockwaves of Cannae reverberated far beyond the battlefield, reshaping Roman military practices, farming, and ultimately laying foundations for the Republic’s decline and the rise of men like Caesar.
This is the kind of history book that leaves you both informed and inspired. O’Connell doesn’t just recount events—he makes you feel the weight of them, their consequences echoing through centuries. If you have any interest in Rome, the Punic Wars, or simply great military history, I cannot recommend The Ghosts of Cannae enough.
Yes, as many of you know, I’m a bit obsessed with ancient Roman history. That spark really took hold during the summer of 2024, when I helped supervise a trip to Italy with my son’s Italian class. We spent a few unforgettable days in Rome, taking in all the major sights. It was an amazing experience that deepened my fascination with Roman history, and since then I’ve been diving into every book I can find—especially on the Punic Wars, which I find absolutely riveting.
That brings me to The Ghosts of Cannae by Robert O’Connell. I stumbled upon this book at an incredible community book sale—an untouched first edition for just $2.00! What a treasure. And what a read.
O’Connell is a master storyteller and military historian. His descriptions of the Battle of Cannae are vivid and powerful, full of drama and insight. ( He can be a bit Cheeky too!) He writes with real gusto, giving life not just to the clash itself, but to the larger context of the Second Punic War. I’ve already worked through Adrian Goldsworthy’s monumental The Punic Wars and am nearly finished with his shorter volume on Cannae, but O’Connell brings something different: a sweeping, accessible, and deeply human take on this pivotal moment in history.
I especially enjoyed O’Connell’s exploration of Scipio Africanus. I’ve long admired Scipio, and it was eye-opening to learn more about how little reverence he received from the Roman Senate, despite his brilliance. The shockwaves of Cannae reverberated far beyond the battlefield, reshaping Roman military practices, farming, and ultimately laying foundations for the Republic’s decline and the rise of men like Caesar.
This is the kind of history book that leaves you both informed and inspired. O’Connell doesn’t just recount events—he makes you feel the weight of them, their consequences echoing through centuries. If you have any interest in Rome, the Punic Wars, or simply great military history, I cannot recommend The Ghosts of Cannae enough.
August 31, 2012
This is nothing short of a superb history of the Second Punic War. It was nothing short of amazing to see Hannibal practically pick Rome apart with virtually no support or even permission from Carthage: His decades-long invasion was conducted mostly as a freebooting warlord who put together his own armies as he went. The Battle of Cannae in 216 B.C. may very well have been the bloodiest battle in history, with tens of thousands of Romans -- two entire merged consular armies -- surrounded on four sides and slashed to death by Hannibal's men.
And then, the few Roman survivors were exiled by the Senate for breaking their oath not to retreat. In addition to the survivors of several other of Hannibal's victories, they were exiled to Sicily. It was only the genius of Scipio Africanus, scion of a Roman military family who lost many of its members at the hands of Hannibal, that the Carthaginian found his nemesis. In his own way as much a military genius as Hannibal Barca, Scipio linked up with the exiled losers of Cannae and invaded Carthage while Hannibal was still conducting military operations in Italy. He not only invaded: He conquered Carthage, and demanded the recall of Hannibal and his brother Mago.
When Hannibal and the remnants of his army returned to Carthage, Scipio and his army defeated them in a complete route at the Battle of Zama.
Just to give you an idea of the intensity of the Battle of Cannae, read this passage from Livy's History:
And then, the few Roman survivors were exiled by the Senate for breaking their oath not to retreat. In addition to the survivors of several other of Hannibal's victories, they were exiled to Sicily. It was only the genius of Scipio Africanus, scion of a Roman military family who lost many of its members at the hands of Hannibal, that the Carthaginian found his nemesis. In his own way as much a military genius as Hannibal Barca, Scipio linked up with the exiled losers of Cannae and invaded Carthage while Hannibal was still conducting military operations in Italy. He not only invaded: He conquered Carthage, and demanded the recall of Hannibal and his brother Mago.
When Hannibal and the remnants of his army returned to Carthage, Scipio and his army defeated them in a complete route at the Battle of Zama.
Just to give you an idea of the intensity of the Battle of Cannae, read this passage from Livy's History:
Here and there amidst the slain there started up a gory figure whose wounds had begun to throb with the chill of dawn, and was cut down by his enemies; some were discovered lying there alive, with thighs and tendons slashed, baring their necks and throats and bidding their conquerors drain the remnant of their blood. Others were found with their heads buried in holes dug in the ground. They had apparently made these pits for themselves, and heaping the dirt over their faces shut off their breath. But what most drew the attention of all beholdees was a Numidian who was dragged out alive from under a dead Roman, but with a mutilated nose and ears, for the Roman, unable to hold a weapon in his hands, had expired in a frenzy of rage, while rending the other with his teeth.
October 14, 2015
I singled out Cornwell's Waterloo for praise based on its accessibility. It's rare to find a straight-up military history that's designed to explain the basic concepts of maneuver warfare, order-of-battle, troop organization and accoutrement, and the details of military life to the lay reader. To do so in a manner that is at once engaging and dramatic is practically singular.
What Cornwell does for Napoleonic warfare, O'Connell does for Ancient warfare, and readers who know nothing about how people fought in the early iron age will come away enlightened. Like Cornwell, O'Connell has a gift for story beats and pivoting off the characters, ensuring that the history orbits the people, which is the surefire recipe for the best narrative scholarship.
I loved this book, but I am docking it a star for a single fly in the otherwise glorious ointment: O'Connell's treatment of Sophonisba. Instead of approaching her with historical detachment and sobriety, he addresses her as the ancient writers did. She is distilled down to a single element: her sexuality and physical appearance. O'Connell uses the tired old sexist vocabulary: "temptress" and "sorceress," likening her sexuality to magic. It's antiquated, tone-deaf and at times, downright creepy. Historians, and O'Connell in particular, can do better.
What Cornwell does for Napoleonic warfare, O'Connell does for Ancient warfare, and readers who know nothing about how people fought in the early iron age will come away enlightened. Like Cornwell, O'Connell has a gift for story beats and pivoting off the characters, ensuring that the history orbits the people, which is the surefire recipe for the best narrative scholarship.
I loved this book, but I am docking it a star for a single fly in the otherwise glorious ointment: O'Connell's treatment of Sophonisba. Instead of approaching her with historical detachment and sobriety, he addresses her as the ancient writers did. She is distilled down to a single element: her sexuality and physical appearance. O'Connell uses the tired old sexist vocabulary: "temptress" and "sorceress," likening her sexuality to magic. It's antiquated, tone-deaf and at times, downright creepy. Historians, and O'Connell in particular, can do better.
June 29, 2021
Borrow.
I've lost count of how many books I've read on the Punic Wars. Fortunately, they never get old. This was a solid book, not as good as that by Adrian Goldsworthy or some others but still good and worth a read.
I've lost count of how many books I've read on the Punic Wars. Fortunately, they never get old. This was a solid book, not as good as that by Adrian Goldsworthy or some others but still good and worth a read.
June 19, 2016
The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic by Robert O’Connell is an engaging and interesting account of Hannibal, the battle of Cannae and the Second Punic War.
This book does not offer an in-depth history of this conflict, for that you should refer to Adrian Goldsworthy’s brilliant account; The Punic Wars. However if you wanted an easy and quick to-read account on this pivotal period in Rome’s and Carthage’s history then this is the book for you.
The author’s style of writing is at time’s a bit ‘quirky’, with ‘kool-aid’ and 'Panzer Pachyderms' and other off-beat words being used along with comparisons to Ronald Regan and other American Presidents. This is at times a bit annoying but I would suppose the author is trying to make history accessible for another generation and if that works then I’m all for it.
Overall this book offers the general reader a decent and enjoyable historical account of a devastating battle in antiquity that has reverberated throughout history. I am sure most readers will enjoy the story following Hannibal and Scipio Africanus fight it out to the end.
This book does not offer an in-depth history of this conflict, for that you should refer to Adrian Goldsworthy’s brilliant account; The Punic Wars. However if you wanted an easy and quick to-read account on this pivotal period in Rome’s and Carthage’s history then this is the book for you.
The author’s style of writing is at time’s a bit ‘quirky’, with ‘kool-aid’ and 'Panzer Pachyderms' and other off-beat words being used along with comparisons to Ronald Regan and other American Presidents. This is at times a bit annoying but I would suppose the author is trying to make history accessible for another generation and if that works then I’m all for it.
Overall this book offers the general reader a decent and enjoyable historical account of a devastating battle in antiquity that has reverberated throughout history. I am sure most readers will enjoy the story following Hannibal and Scipio Africanus fight it out to the end.
July 27, 2013
I found this book somewhat disappointing.
While I enjoyed the detailed history of the Punic wars, I found both the style of the book and the style of the reading to be somewhat grating at times. The attempts to be hip and casual were dated the moment they were written. Furthermore, the argument that Cannae and the treatment of its veterans had a role in re-shaping the Roman Republic seems a bit thin. Scipio Africanus may have been the template for later charismatic generals who took their outsized sway back into the political arena, but the idea that that was a result of Cannae is not substantiated.
That being said, if you haven't read Roman history, you should, and this may be a reasonable place to start. Once you get into it, the book is reasonably engaging.
One thing I did get out of the book that is relevant for modern readers, especially in a management or a business context, is how the Romans kept using the same tactics against Hannibal, and kept failing in the face of his protean trickery. They would raise a bigger army, and try a different general, but use the same tactics. Fabius Maximus had a clever, successful defensive strategy that changed the game, but even he couldn't defeat Hannibal in battle. It wasn't until Scipio developed new, more flexible tactics, and trained his men to use them, that Hannibal met his match. How often do companies, or government agencies, try what amounts to the same plan over and over again, changing the name of the program and its leader, but not its fundamentals? Real change is hard.
Possibly the most interesting thing in the book was the epilogue, which, contrary to the overhyped description on the jacket, points out that Cannae's place in history as the archetypal battle, the perfect victory, wasn't common until the 20th century, when it became a key part of German military doctrine.
That little note made me think how much of our history is a reflection not only of the time when the events occurred and the real impact that they had, but also of the fashions of the day, which elevate them or bury them.
While I enjoyed the detailed history of the Punic wars, I found both the style of the book and the style of the reading to be somewhat grating at times. The attempts to be hip and casual were dated the moment they were written. Furthermore, the argument that Cannae and the treatment of its veterans had a role in re-shaping the Roman Republic seems a bit thin. Scipio Africanus may have been the template for later charismatic generals who took their outsized sway back into the political arena, but the idea that that was a result of Cannae is not substantiated.
That being said, if you haven't read Roman history, you should, and this may be a reasonable place to start. Once you get into it, the book is reasonably engaging.
One thing I did get out of the book that is relevant for modern readers, especially in a management or a business context, is how the Romans kept using the same tactics against Hannibal, and kept failing in the face of his protean trickery. They would raise a bigger army, and try a different general, but use the same tactics. Fabius Maximus had a clever, successful defensive strategy that changed the game, but even he couldn't defeat Hannibal in battle. It wasn't until Scipio developed new, more flexible tactics, and trained his men to use them, that Hannibal met his match. How often do companies, or government agencies, try what amounts to the same plan over and over again, changing the name of the program and its leader, but not its fundamentals? Real change is hard.
Possibly the most interesting thing in the book was the epilogue, which, contrary to the overhyped description on the jacket, points out that Cannae's place in history as the archetypal battle, the perfect victory, wasn't common until the 20th century, when it became a key part of German military doctrine.
That little note made me think how much of our history is a reflection not only of the time when the events occurred and the real impact that they had, but also of the fashions of the day, which elevate them or bury them.
May 24, 2012
This is a book I read in tandem with "Carthage Must Be Destroyed". They both cover similar ground but in different way. The story is that of Hannibal, who at the battle of Cannae, inflicted the greatest single battle military defeat on Rome ever - in fact possibly the largest single day battle defeat anywhere ever. The motivation for the book is clear - how did this spectacular event come about and what were its consequences? The problem that any book about Cannae faces is that much if not all of the history is written from the perspective of the Romans - the winners -- and it is doubtful that much new data will come to light.
This book takes up the challenge by highlighting (perhaps overly so) a few unifying themes, including:
1) The trials and tribulations of the Roman survivors of Cannae (the "Ghosts") in terms of blame for the loss, ostracism from Roman life, and their eventual trial over Hannibal at Zama. This is a really good line that resonates with contemporary issues regarding how veterans from current wars should be treated. O'Connell could have even done more with this.
2) In some conditions, such as prevailed over the course of the Second Punic War, really smart and inventive generals can make all the difference in the world, against vastly superior numbers. The two stars here are Hannibal and Scipio Africanus. Related to this are a number of issues, such as that of "winning battles but losing the war" and the genius general as misfit.
3) Perhaps the most important theme that could have received even more attention was the difference between strategic and tactical levels of engagement and how Rome, once hardened by Hannibal, developed a very sophisticated approach to winning the war that succeeded even as it was unpopular and taxing. Related to this is the idea that in coming to grips with Hannibal, Rome came to rely on professional soldier/leaders in ways that led to Civil War, the end of the Republic, and the rise of the Roman Empire. It is good to raise this, although it requires much more discussion to make this point clearly and persuasively.
Overall, I thought this approach to the book was effective, although at times it had the air of a sports commentary at the Super Bowl. The focus is what is helpful - if one tries to cover the sweep of history at play here and all of the details, along with all the historical data issues, there will be a danger of losing the forest for the trees. I guess it boils down to needing to read multiple treatments of some story to sort out the role of perspective in how the story is told.
Overall, this was a really good book.
This book takes up the challenge by highlighting (perhaps overly so) a few unifying themes, including:
1) The trials and tribulations of the Roman survivors of Cannae (the "Ghosts") in terms of blame for the loss, ostracism from Roman life, and their eventual trial over Hannibal at Zama. This is a really good line that resonates with contemporary issues regarding how veterans from current wars should be treated. O'Connell could have even done more with this.
2) In some conditions, such as prevailed over the course of the Second Punic War, really smart and inventive generals can make all the difference in the world, against vastly superior numbers. The two stars here are Hannibal and Scipio Africanus. Related to this are a number of issues, such as that of "winning battles but losing the war" and the genius general as misfit.
3) Perhaps the most important theme that could have received even more attention was the difference between strategic and tactical levels of engagement and how Rome, once hardened by Hannibal, developed a very sophisticated approach to winning the war that succeeded even as it was unpopular and taxing. Related to this is the idea that in coming to grips with Hannibal, Rome came to rely on professional soldier/leaders in ways that led to Civil War, the end of the Republic, and the rise of the Roman Empire. It is good to raise this, although it requires much more discussion to make this point clearly and persuasively.
Overall, I thought this approach to the book was effective, although at times it had the air of a sports commentary at the Super Bowl. The focus is what is helpful - if one tries to cover the sweep of history at play here and all of the details, along with all the historical data issues, there will be a danger of losing the forest for the trees. I guess it boils down to needing to read multiple treatments of some story to sort out the role of perspective in how the story is told.
Overall, this was a really good book.
September 12, 2014
Author Robert O'Connell acknowledges up front that a lack of contemporary sources from the time period limit what we know, but he makes exceptionally good use of what information is available. He explains that the Battle of Cannae during the Second Punic War was a turning point for Republican Rome (216 BC). Rome was beaten badly by Hannibal, the Carthaginian general who led his troops over the Alps in a daring and highly successful raid. But for all Hannibal's military genius and victories, he lost the war and Rome went on to become a great power. The "Ghosts" in the title refer to Roman soldiers who lost at Cannae and were exiled in shame, but later played a pivotal role when Scipio Africanus (gotta love the names!) recruited them and finally defeated Carthage.
I remember Hannibal from history classes long ago but didn't recall the Battle of Cannae - even had to look up the pronunciation which surprisingly turns out to be kan-EE (the emphasis can actually be on either syllable). Hannibal really was the star of this book for me, and I found it rather boring (almost stopping for something else) until it reached his trek into the Alps. Then the book takes off and was almost impossible to put down as he explains Hannibal's military strategies, and how he adapted and took advantage of situations (like positioning his troops upwind so the dust blew in the Romans faces). While I think O'Connell tries to make the book accessible for those without much knowledge of early Roman history, some prior exposure might be useful to follow the narrative. I also appreciated that O'Connell explains the limitations on the record from that early time, and throughout debates on the merits of various records and why or why they might not be reliable. His writing style is... well, I guess I could say 'interesting' - I thought it sounded like it was written by a twenty-something instead of a seasoned historian - but it works and makes it very readable. Maps, a 'list of characters,' and glossary of important terms are also helpful for those of us not familiar with ancient military history. In the end, a very enjoyable book (now I'll have to find something on Archimedes and the battle of Syracuse, which sounded very interesting...).
I remember Hannibal from history classes long ago but didn't recall the Battle of Cannae - even had to look up the pronunciation which surprisingly turns out to be kan-EE (the emphasis can actually be on either syllable). Hannibal really was the star of this book for me, and I found it rather boring (almost stopping for something else) until it reached his trek into the Alps. Then the book takes off and was almost impossible to put down as he explains Hannibal's military strategies, and how he adapted and took advantage of situations (like positioning his troops upwind so the dust blew in the Romans faces). While I think O'Connell tries to make the book accessible for those without much knowledge of early Roman history, some prior exposure might be useful to follow the narrative. I also appreciated that O'Connell explains the limitations on the record from that early time, and throughout debates on the merits of various records and why or why they might not be reliable. His writing style is... well, I guess I could say 'interesting' - I thought it sounded like it was written by a twenty-something instead of a seasoned historian - but it works and makes it very readable. Maps, a 'list of characters,' and glossary of important terms are also helpful for those of us not familiar with ancient military history. In the end, a very enjoyable book (now I'll have to find something on Archimedes and the battle of Syracuse, which sounded very interesting...).
February 9, 2019
The stats for the Battle of Cannae still have the power to shock. More Roman soldiers were killed in that battle than Americans were killed in all the years of the Vietnam War. More soldiers were killed in that one day of battle than have been killed in any day of battle in the entire history of war, including the modern era with all its poison gas, machine guns, bombers, and high explosives. (More soldiers were killed in battles like Verdun and Stalingrad, but these battles lasted for months). Perhaps most surprising, a quarter to a third of the members of the Roman Senate were killed at Cannae.
Unfortunately for Hannibal, the Second Punic War was about much more than that one day of violence, and in the end, and even with all his other great victories, he just couldn’t beat Roman tenacity. The Romans had the resources and they simply would not give up.
In The Ghosts of Cannae, Robert O’Connell thoroughly and convincingly describes the battle within the context of the history, culture, and politics of both Rome and Carthage. He also explores the ramifications of the battle and argues that it had a destabilizing influence on the Roman Republic that would culminate in its fall, leading to the rise of the Roman Empire.
Well written, meticulously researched, and convincingly argued, this is the book to read about Cannae if you have any interest in the subject.
Unfortunately for Hannibal, the Second Punic War was about much more than that one day of violence, and in the end, and even with all his other great victories, he just couldn’t beat Roman tenacity. The Romans had the resources and they simply would not give up.
In The Ghosts of Cannae, Robert O’Connell thoroughly and convincingly describes the battle within the context of the history, culture, and politics of both Rome and Carthage. He also explores the ramifications of the battle and argues that it had a destabilizing influence on the Roman Republic that would culminate in its fall, leading to the rise of the Roman Empire.
Well written, meticulously researched, and convincingly argued, this is the book to read about Cannae if you have any interest in the subject.
September 8, 2022
There’s no bad book about Cannae in a Tunisian household.
December 21, 2018
A history book about Hannibal Barca, The Carthaginian general who's most famous achievement was marching an army including war elephants over the Pyrenees and Alps into Italy and defeating all armies that the Romans sent against him.
The title of the book is taken from the punishment inflicted on the Roman survivors of the Cannae battle, Hannibal's first battle on Italian soil. Considered cowards, they were banned from Rome and got the name "Ghosts of Cannae".
Robert L. O’Connell, describes the whole war and the tactics that were used by both sides. The bottom line is that while Hannibal did not lose a battle against the Romans during his 15 year campaign on Roman soil, he lost the war.
The supreme tactical victory at Cannae has made Hannibal the envy of professionals ever since, but he could not cash it in for a strategic victory: 70 years after the battle, his home city of Carthage was reduced to powder, and it was his enemies who went on to rule the Mediterranean and its hinterlands for another five centuries. Military experts may purr over the perfection of Hannibal’s achievement by the banks of the River Aufidus, but the more enduring lesson is that tactics alone cannot win a war.
Another point made in the book is that (according to the writers opinion) the outcome of this war in regards to the veterans who fought it and the treatment they got from the Roman parliament, paved the way to the Italian/Roman civil wars and the establishment of armies that have loyalty to their generals. This, of course led to the end of the republic which was replaced by the dictatorship.
I found the book interesting and educational. I did find the comparison's to modern wars (ww1 and ww2) interesting but to some extent far fetched.
The title of the book is taken from the punishment inflicted on the Roman survivors of the Cannae battle, Hannibal's first battle on Italian soil. Considered cowards, they were banned from Rome and got the name "Ghosts of Cannae".
Robert L. O’Connell, describes the whole war and the tactics that were used by both sides. The bottom line is that while Hannibal did not lose a battle against the Romans during his 15 year campaign on Roman soil, he lost the war.
The supreme tactical victory at Cannae has made Hannibal the envy of professionals ever since, but he could not cash it in for a strategic victory: 70 years after the battle, his home city of Carthage was reduced to powder, and it was his enemies who went on to rule the Mediterranean and its hinterlands for another five centuries. Military experts may purr over the perfection of Hannibal’s achievement by the banks of the River Aufidus, but the more enduring lesson is that tactics alone cannot win a war.
Another point made in the book is that (according to the writers opinion) the outcome of this war in regards to the veterans who fought it and the treatment they got from the Roman parliament, paved the way to the Italian/Roman civil wars and the establishment of armies that have loyalty to their generals. This, of course led to the end of the republic which was replaced by the dictatorship.
I found the book interesting and educational. I did find the comparison's to modern wars (ww1 and ww2) interesting but to some extent far fetched.
July 31, 2021
Hannibal. The premier warlord. An enigma and so not a studied general like Rommel, Guderian, Alexander, or Patton. This is a mistake. All students of history should be familiar with Hannibal and his eventual successor, Scipio Africanus. A well-written study do the early Roman Republic. I highly recommend this one.
February 8, 2013
Those Barcid boys, what a rowdy bunch of troublemakers they were. Mago, Hasdrubal and, especially our favorite, Hannibal (“he who enjoys Baal’s favor”) Barca, raged around the Mediterranean for many years. Of course, we mainly remember Hannibal for crossing the Alps with his elephants and for the battle of Cannae. Ole Hannibal stills hold the world record for most soldiers killed in a day, approx 48,000 give or take. Amazing isn’t it, considering how we have improved and streamlined the killing of our fellow man over the years. Even the first day of the Somme pales in comparison. Hannibal and his men killed them face-to-face, with spear and sword, eye-to-eye, slicing, stabbing, cleaving, bashing…. A feat truly beyond our imagination, or at least mine. In The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic, O’Connell will give you a good feel for how it was done. 4 Stars from me and highly recommended.
Honestly, I knew so little about Carthage and the Punic Wars. I had to remedy that and this book is a good start. O’Connell really gives you an account of the Second Punic War. The battle at Cannae only comprises about 35 pages. The rise of Carthage, the Spanish base of the Barcids (how he refers to the Barca family), the march of Hannibal to Italy and many of Hannibal’s battles are discussed. In addition, we see the rise of P.C. Scipio Africanus who will eventually become the commander who defeats Hannibal on the North African shore.
O’Connell paints a picture of Carthage that will be familiar to any student of WWII. Like Germany, Carthage enjoys, through Hannibal, tremendous tactical and operational successes on the battlefield yet ultimately strategic failure in the war. Carthage was in the business of making money and hired out much of its military needs to mercenaries. Carthage had tremendous resources and naval power, yet did not employ these effectively. Unlike Rome, Carthage did not have the resources or the strength of will for a prolonged war.
What stands out most for me was how Rome absorbed the onslaught of the Carthaginians, the Gauls, and others. Rome loses battle after battle, legion after legion, army after army, yet they never consider surrender and eventually prevail. O’Connell explains the strengths of the Roman system and compares it to the Carthaginian way. It was inevitable that these two power centers would clash but this book helps explain why the end result, genocide for Carthage, rather than incorporation into a Roman empire was the eventual conclusion.
The Ghosts of Cannae refers most directly to the survivors of that battle (and a couple of other battles subsequent to Cannae). These survivors were banished to Sicily because they survived after having taken an oath not to retreat and were made an example ”pour encourager les autres”. They would eventually be rehabilitated under Scipio Africanus and would form the core of his army to fight Carthage in North Africa. Echoing Victor Davis Hanson’s “Ripples of Battle” method, O’Connell posits that Hannibal’s invasion and the Punic Wars had unforeseen, wide-ranging impacts. Never again could a Cincinnatus figure be given power for a short time to save Rome. A dictator must have power for many years to beat a threat like Hannibal. The survivors of Cannae would look to their generals for salvation and rewards, rather than the state. This inevitably leads to Caesar taking power with the help of his legions.
Having lived for 3 ½ years in Italy, the description of the locations of battles and marches was endlessly fascinating. I wish I’d read about the Punic Wars while I was there. I’ve wandered the ruins of Capua, the coast of Apulia, the coastal cities of Magna Graecia, all beautiful places. Guess I’ll just have to go back and see them again. ;)
Honestly, I knew so little about Carthage and the Punic Wars. I had to remedy that and this book is a good start. O’Connell really gives you an account of the Second Punic War. The battle at Cannae only comprises about 35 pages. The rise of Carthage, the Spanish base of the Barcids (how he refers to the Barca family), the march of Hannibal to Italy and many of Hannibal’s battles are discussed. In addition, we see the rise of P.C. Scipio Africanus who will eventually become the commander who defeats Hannibal on the North African shore.
O’Connell paints a picture of Carthage that will be familiar to any student of WWII. Like Germany, Carthage enjoys, through Hannibal, tremendous tactical and operational successes on the battlefield yet ultimately strategic failure in the war. Carthage was in the business of making money and hired out much of its military needs to mercenaries. Carthage had tremendous resources and naval power, yet did not employ these effectively. Unlike Rome, Carthage did not have the resources or the strength of will for a prolonged war.
What stands out most for me was how Rome absorbed the onslaught of the Carthaginians, the Gauls, and others. Rome loses battle after battle, legion after legion, army after army, yet they never consider surrender and eventually prevail. O’Connell explains the strengths of the Roman system and compares it to the Carthaginian way. It was inevitable that these two power centers would clash but this book helps explain why the end result, genocide for Carthage, rather than incorporation into a Roman empire was the eventual conclusion.
The Ghosts of Cannae refers most directly to the survivors of that battle (and a couple of other battles subsequent to Cannae). These survivors were banished to Sicily because they survived after having taken an oath not to retreat and were made an example ”pour encourager les autres”. They would eventually be rehabilitated under Scipio Africanus and would form the core of his army to fight Carthage in North Africa. Echoing Victor Davis Hanson’s “Ripples of Battle” method, O’Connell posits that Hannibal’s invasion and the Punic Wars had unforeseen, wide-ranging impacts. Never again could a Cincinnatus figure be given power for a short time to save Rome. A dictator must have power for many years to beat a threat like Hannibal. The survivors of Cannae would look to their generals for salvation and rewards, rather than the state. This inevitably leads to Caesar taking power with the help of his legions.
Having lived for 3 ½ years in Italy, the description of the locations of battles and marches was endlessly fascinating. I wish I’d read about the Punic Wars while I was there. I’ve wandered the ruins of Capua, the coast of Apulia, the coastal cities of Magna Graecia, all beautiful places. Guess I’ll just have to go back and see them again. ;)
December 18, 2011
A fairly nondescript and dull history of the Second Punic War, with some extra focus given to the Battle of Cannae. This was the war between Rome and Carthage made famous by Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and subsequent ravaging of the Roman countryside for over a decade. Although author Robert O'Connell sounds excited about the topic, his writing style is mediocre, at times turning into a historical laundry list, and he leaves the one most interesting theme of the book woefully underdeveloped.
After starting with some backdrop of Rome and Carthage at the time of the wars that is very informative and one of the high points of the book, O'Connell plods along the course set by Hannibal, from North Africa to Spain to the Alps to Cannae. For the sequence of events, he cites Polybius's The Histories and Livy's History of Rome a lot, to the point where I feel like I might have just read those two instead (O'Connell repeatedly says that Livy was more given to over-dramatization, but that is the only historian's "value-add" that I think I got with respect to this.) It is at times exciting, but O'Connell sometimes tries to pump the prose with unnecessary and somewhat juvenile phrases of speech more suited for literature than history. For example, at the battle of Cannae: "If it is possible to conceive of hell on earth, this human abattoir of Cannae must have been the equal of any hell that history in all its perversity has managed to concoct." Yeah.
The chapters after Cannae are a real slog, as this is where the book starts just throwing name after name and event after event at you: and then this happened, and then this person led this army, etc. It would have been much better if O'Connell sacrificed some of the descriptive detail in favor of trying to construct a historical narrative. History presented this way leaves me indifferent, as I don't end up grasping any width of scope on the events' importance, and consequently end up not caring about any of it.
There is one very interesting idea presented, which is that Hannibal's prominence in the minds of Romans led them to seek its own military heroes, and that this shift in attitudes marked the start of the downfall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. Whether accurate or not, this is a great thesis and I would love to have heard more about it. Perhaps a more interesting book would start with Cannae as an introductory chapter and cover the ascension of Rome's military over its senate. Unfortunately that is not what this book is.
After starting with some backdrop of Rome and Carthage at the time of the wars that is very informative and one of the high points of the book, O'Connell plods along the course set by Hannibal, from North Africa to Spain to the Alps to Cannae. For the sequence of events, he cites Polybius's The Histories and Livy's History of Rome a lot, to the point where I feel like I might have just read those two instead (O'Connell repeatedly says that Livy was more given to over-dramatization, but that is the only historian's "value-add" that I think I got with respect to this.) It is at times exciting, but O'Connell sometimes tries to pump the prose with unnecessary and somewhat juvenile phrases of speech more suited for literature than history. For example, at the battle of Cannae: "If it is possible to conceive of hell on earth, this human abattoir of Cannae must have been the equal of any hell that history in all its perversity has managed to concoct." Yeah.
The chapters after Cannae are a real slog, as this is where the book starts just throwing name after name and event after event at you: and then this happened, and then this person led this army, etc. It would have been much better if O'Connell sacrificed some of the descriptive detail in favor of trying to construct a historical narrative. History presented this way leaves me indifferent, as I don't end up grasping any width of scope on the events' importance, and consequently end up not caring about any of it.
There is one very interesting idea presented, which is that Hannibal's prominence in the minds of Romans led them to seek its own military heroes, and that this shift in attitudes marked the start of the downfall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. Whether accurate or not, this is a great thesis and I would love to have heard more about it. Perhaps a more interesting book would start with Cannae as an introductory chapter and cover the ascension of Rome's military over its senate. Unfortunately that is not what this book is.
June 3, 2014
A great book on the Second Punic War in general and the battle of Cannae in particular, with the right amount of background on Rome, Carthage, and the Punic Wars. O’ Connell does a good job describing the major players and the battle of Cannae and its consequences.
Some parts of the story are probably familiar: Hannibal’s seemingly impossible crossing of the Alps on an army of elephants, and his defeat of a superior force at Cannae. Unfortunately for Carthage, the whole episode turned into a case study of how to win the battle and lose the war. Scipio Africanus would survive Cannae to fight another day, and would eventually defeat Carthage in Spain, conquer its allies, and later annihilate Hannibal’s army. Carthage, it seems, was good at mercantile business but sucked at war.”Paradoxically,” O’Connell writes, “their beatings at the hands of the Romans had the effect of making them richer--less bellicose and more businesslike.” Rome, on the other hand, had founded a society built and ruled by war.
Interestingly, O’Connell argues that Hannibal did eventually destroy Rome, albeit indirectly: Hannibal’s invasions caused the Roman people to turn to charismatic and power-hungry generals who became dictators for short periods.
In all, I enjoyed the book, but O’Connell, in a misguided attempt to relate to modern readers (or something), frequently resorts to stupid modern-day idioms that just sound way too dumb given the subject matter of the book. His attempts at humor are also a failure. Andy Warhol, Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd make cameo appearances in the Second Punic War between the epic rivals Rome and Carthage. (OK, so they’re only references but you get the point). He even calls Hannibal’s elephants “pachyderm panzers” (PACHYDERM PANZERS?!) and describes Roman officials as being in a “rat race”, and Roman soldiers being “one-trick ponies”. Apparently the battle of Zama opened with “pachyderm pandemonium.” He even writes “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee” at one point, and describes Scipio as “ready to rumble.” He describes Scipio’s rout of Hasdrubal’s forces as “Professor Moriarty, or Dr. Fu-Manchu, or Ming the Merciless slipping through the righteous clutches of Flash Gordon.” Given the subject matter these things are so dumb that they’re almost funny. Almost.
Those quibbles aside, this is a pretty good look at the Second Punic War and the Battle of Cannae.
Some parts of the story are probably familiar: Hannibal’s seemingly impossible crossing of the Alps on an army of elephants, and his defeat of a superior force at Cannae. Unfortunately for Carthage, the whole episode turned into a case study of how to win the battle and lose the war. Scipio Africanus would survive Cannae to fight another day, and would eventually defeat Carthage in Spain, conquer its allies, and later annihilate Hannibal’s army. Carthage, it seems, was good at mercantile business but sucked at war.”Paradoxically,” O’Connell writes, “their beatings at the hands of the Romans had the effect of making them richer--less bellicose and more businesslike.” Rome, on the other hand, had founded a society built and ruled by war.
Interestingly, O’Connell argues that Hannibal did eventually destroy Rome, albeit indirectly: Hannibal’s invasions caused the Roman people to turn to charismatic and power-hungry generals who became dictators for short periods.
In all, I enjoyed the book, but O’Connell, in a misguided attempt to relate to modern readers (or something), frequently resorts to stupid modern-day idioms that just sound way too dumb given the subject matter of the book. His attempts at humor are also a failure. Andy Warhol, Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd make cameo appearances in the Second Punic War between the epic rivals Rome and Carthage. (OK, so they’re only references but you get the point). He even calls Hannibal’s elephants “pachyderm panzers” (PACHYDERM PANZERS?!) and describes Roman officials as being in a “rat race”, and Roman soldiers being “one-trick ponies”. Apparently the battle of Zama opened with “pachyderm pandemonium.” He even writes “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee” at one point, and describes Scipio as “ready to rumble.” He describes Scipio’s rout of Hasdrubal’s forces as “Professor Moriarty, or Dr. Fu-Manchu, or Ming the Merciless slipping through the righteous clutches of Flash Gordon.” Given the subject matter these things are so dumb that they’re almost funny. Almost.
Those quibbles aside, this is a pretty good look at the Second Punic War and the Battle of Cannae.
April 30, 2024
Approachable, entertaining and well researched. I very much enjoyed this up close look at Hannibal and the Second Punic War. I wish we had more source material to give even more intimate insight into the personality of the clever and charismatic military genius that Hannibal must have been … jt is what this book most begs to no fault of the author.
September 27, 2021
Few if any books can describe such a classical, TV series worthy, battle like Cannae. The Serpant vs Thunderbolt. Both men names inscribed in history as masters of their craft. Splendid book, really fun read.
October 13, 2014
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 15, 2020
Hannibal was a military genius, as was Alexander. Ancient history continues to fascinate! On to Spartacus :)
March 15, 2019
The 'ghosts' that provide the excuse for the (admittedly great) title of this book are the cannenses, the survivors of the Roman army comprehensively defeated at Cannae. And there's some interesting info on what seems to have happened to them, and just how unforgiving the Republic was of people who dared survive a debacle, they're not really enough of a focus to name a book after.
In an epilogue, there is another form of 'ghost'. O'Connell looks at how well regarded Cannae has been throughout history. This actually provides a fair amount of myth-busting. Certainly, it was written about, but for most of the last two thousand years, Cannae was not a battle written about often. And it certainly didn't have the near mythological status it has today. Most of the current reputation and study of the battle stems from Alfred von Schlieffen (yes, that von Shlieffen, of the 'Schlieffen Plan') becoming fascinated with the battle at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.
Interestingly, O'Connell goes all the way back to human evolution to look at the sources of organized war before giving a brief overview of more recent history of the area, naturally concentrating on the First Punic War. This shows that this is purely 'popular' history, and doesn't even pre-suppose that readers regularly read military history. So overall there's not a lot new here for people who have had an interest in the period and done a fair amount of reading on it previously. However, he does pay a bit more attention to the original sources than many, and does a good job of showing what he is pulling out of them and how, making it better than a number of popular studies that way. Best yet, the book is excellently written, with some very nice analysis and modern analogies.
In an epilogue, there is another form of 'ghost'. O'Connell looks at how well regarded Cannae has been throughout history. This actually provides a fair amount of myth-busting. Certainly, it was written about, but for most of the last two thousand years, Cannae was not a battle written about often. And it certainly didn't have the near mythological status it has today. Most of the current reputation and study of the battle stems from Alfred von Schlieffen (yes, that von Shlieffen, of the 'Schlieffen Plan') becoming fascinated with the battle at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.
Interestingly, O'Connell goes all the way back to human evolution to look at the sources of organized war before giving a brief overview of more recent history of the area, naturally concentrating on the First Punic War. This shows that this is purely 'popular' history, and doesn't even pre-suppose that readers regularly read military history. So overall there's not a lot new here for people who have had an interest in the period and done a fair amount of reading on it previously. However, he does pay a bit more attention to the original sources than many, and does a good job of showing what he is pulling out of them and how, making it better than a number of popular studies that way. Best yet, the book is excellently written, with some very nice analysis and modern analogies.
March 2, 2021
Robert L. O’Connell’s “The Ghosts of Cannae” is by far the best treatment of the Second Punic War that I have yet read. Many military professionals and aficionados of ancient Rome are knowledgeable about the great victory over Rome that Hannibal won at Cannae in 216 BCE – and as the title implies, the book covers that engagement extensively – but O’Connell takes us deeper. He expertly guides us through the root causes of the decades-long conflict between Rome and Carthage, analyzes the cultural and economic aspects of both states that led them to war and influenced how they fought, and describes how the personalities of key figures – members of the Barcid clan on the one side, prominent Roman commanders on the other – contributed the unfolding and resolution of each encounter. His discussion of the legacy of the Battle of Cannae resonated with me; I myself was taught when I attended the Infantry Officer Advanced Course that Cannae was the model of the decisive maneuver battle that every commander should seek. But Professor O’Connell explains that while Cannae was a monumental tactical victory for the Carthaginians, Hannibal’s battlefield creativity and brilliance were undermined by his failure to think strategically. Ultimately, it was the much less dramatic Fabian strategy of attrition that won the day and set Carthage up for defeat at the hands of the aggressive and ingenious Scipio Africanus. Two final messages that O’Connell leaves us are especially relevant to our times. First, a society that engages in protracted wars must take proper care of its veterans. Secondly – and more chillingly - when the people in general and the military in particular hold more loyalty to an individual leader than to their country, republican government and the rule of law are on perilous ground indeed.
May 15, 2013
There is but one half-hearted bit of praise that I can muster for this book: it has an introductory historiographic essay that lay readers will find marginally useful. For the specialist, for anyone who has read Polybius and Livy, or for anyone who has taken the trouble to delve into the rather copious secondary literature on the Second Punic War, this essay will resemble the rest of the book: a complete and utter waste of time.
The Ghosts of Cannae is an insulting, feckless attempt at making history "hip" for a modern audience. Such tortured locutions as "Augustus Caesar, Rome's first emperor--or princeps, as the main man preferred" and the maddeningly anachronistic "panzer pachyderms" make O'Connell's work a tough slog for all but the most credulous readers. I would be remiss if I did not also point out that the phrase "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" makes an appearance in the text. One is only marginally surprised that Fabius Maximus Cunctator's delaying tactics aren't described as "rope-a-dope". Please, do not repeat my mistake by allowing yourself to be the next dope that is roped into this rubbish.
The Ghosts of Cannae is an insulting, feckless attempt at making history "hip" for a modern audience. Such tortured locutions as "Augustus Caesar, Rome's first emperor--or princeps, as the main man preferred" and the maddeningly anachronistic "panzer pachyderms" make O'Connell's work a tough slog for all but the most credulous readers. I would be remiss if I did not also point out that the phrase "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" makes an appearance in the text. One is only marginally surprised that Fabius Maximus Cunctator's delaying tactics aren't described as "rope-a-dope". Please, do not repeat my mistake by allowing yourself to be the next dope that is roped into this rubbish.
September 21, 2014
This is an amazing work of military history, full of blazing combat and fascinating insight into tactics, strategy, and weaponry in the ancient world. Most of the book is about the battle of Cannae, a defeat so terrible it seemed to spell the end of Rome in 216 BC. But the Romans came back, and this book explains why.
The author really makes Hannibal's invasion of Rome come to life, and he also brings to life the brilliant Roman general Scipio Africanus, who finally defeated Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC. This is the kind of book that's really perfect in every way, except that you just want more. I wanted to learn much more about power and politics in Carthage, and what life was like in the city, for the nobles, the commoners, and the slaves. I also wanted to learn more about ancient Spain, and why the primitive tribes ultimately sided with Rome instead of Carthage. I wanted so much more even though everything in the book was perfectly described and fascinating!
The author really makes Hannibal's invasion of Rome come to life, and he also brings to life the brilliant Roman general Scipio Africanus, who finally defeated Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC. This is the kind of book that's really perfect in every way, except that you just want more. I wanted to learn much more about power and politics in Carthage, and what life was like in the city, for the nobles, the commoners, and the slaves. I also wanted to learn more about ancient Spain, and why the primitive tribes ultimately sided with Rome instead of Carthage. I wanted so much more even though everything in the book was perfectly described and fascinating!
March 18, 2021
If you are a student of Roman History or a student of military tactics, this is the book for you. Although quite detailed , one can follow the main themes without getting too bogged down in the myriad personalities. I wish there were more maps. but other than that, the book was superb. It was a window on the times the people, and the lasting impact of this battle. The title itself is interesting as it relates not to the people killed in the battle, but the survivors of the battle who were treated shabbily by the Romans for their defeat. The book shows how they were ultimately vindicated years later at Zama whey they defeated their old foe Hannibal. Well done.
July 27, 2017
Very well-paced, extremely engaging, and so well-written one is able to distinguish between the many similarly named Carthaginians, not to mention the complicated politics of Rome and its many players.
I listened to the audiobook - I don't know if the text has maps and battle diagrams, but the author clearly didn't expect the reader to rely on those. His words were enough to form the picture of battle plans, the geography and topography of marches, and the like. Also, the audiobook reader for the Tantor edition has a lovely voice.
I listened to the audiobook - I don't know if the text has maps and battle diagrams, but the author clearly didn't expect the reader to rely on those. His words were enough to form the picture of battle plans, the geography and topography of marches, and the like. Also, the audiobook reader for the Tantor edition has a lovely voice.
January 28, 2022
Mike and I read this book together, out loud to each other over the course of a few months. Despite our slow progress, we both really enjoyed this book. I don’t usually like history books, but this author did a great job of making the history interesting and easily understood. His thesis of Cannae leading to the downfall of the Roman Republic was super interesting and well defended. I wished for a bit more expansion on that, but maybe I just need to know more Roman history. Overall very well done and would recommend.
June 30, 2021
Very readable history of the second Punic war. Lots of context and interesting assessments of the various contradictory resources from that time. I was specifically interested in Hannibal's skill as a general and I got a good sense of that from this book. Not much focus on the elephants though, which surprised me.
July 6, 2022
這本書的內容，基本上它一出我就非買不可了。讀完之後，雖然納悶翁老師出書的速度，但不得不對他選書的眼光感到佩服。
國內西方上古史的著作有稍微增加，但關於漢尼拔的書印象中當屬麥田的那本最知名，只是它已然絕版，要去圖書館尋找了。至於那三部曲的小說更是知者少之又少了。
如果有所謂的西方四大名將，那麼漢尼拔是其中知名度最低的，應當也不意外才是。
這本書也許可以填補上這個空白，在台灣來說。
整部羅馬千年史，基本上個人認為最迷人的，還是莫過於第二次布匿克戰爭及共和末到帝國初這兩個時期，特別是前者，幾乎可以說是一場張力十足，精采萬分的“歷史劇作”。以棒球比賽來說，羅馬在一開局就被漢尼拔這個投手兼第四棒壓制，然後局局丟分，最後第三局(坎奈)更是被打了支滿貫，定下大局。但敗者一方卻沒有放棄，依然慢慢努力的追比數，終於在第七局上半找來了救援投手(法比烏斯)壓住失分，然後九下再由代打(西比奧)敲了支再見滿貫紅不讓(查馬會戰)逆轉乾坤。這在現實中的比賽也是極為罕見。
而在這精采故事的背後，隱藏著改變後來地中海世界走向的因子，這是筆者之前閱讀所不曾有的，也是筆者大力推崇本書的原因。
羅馬人能夠成為地中海世界的霸主，原因有很多，除了武力之外，一般共識在於他們的擴張型態的與眾不同。比起其他國家的征服後徹底毀滅，或者是本書作者所稱的“希臘化大遊戲”(僅限於威望的角逐而非戰略上的征服的大國鬥爭)，羅馬早期即以一種緩慢但有計畫性的方式在擴張，他們把所有被征服的敵人都收編上自己的戰車，培育成利益的共同體，致力於“羅馬化”。這是非常不同的一種擴張方式，在上古時代恐怕只有亞歷山大的短命帝國堪差比擬。但羅馬本身還是那個時代的城邦的一員，非職業化的軍隊體系，使他們的擴張只能是緩慢的步調，直到漢尼拔的出現。
當然，第一次與迦太基的戰爭，那種長期性的僵持即以展露出羅馬如果想要持續的擴張，必須要有點改變。而跟這個擋在他們稱霸路上最大的敵人的對決是一種必然性，顯而易見，但在第二次布匿克戰爭後，老加圖持續堅持非要滅亡迦太基不可，根據某些史家的說法，則有階級上的利益衝突之關係了。但不管如何，被拔掉武力後反而憑藉著商業而更加繁榮的迦太基，會招惹羅馬更深的忌恨是不難想像的，大家只要回想一下八零年代美國人怎麼看日本人就可知道了。
但在這之前，點燃第二次戰火的，卻不是羅馬人，而是來自於巴卡家族的漢尼拔。
很少有像這樣由一個家族對於一個國家的怨恨而開啟戰端的其他例子，或許是筆者孤陋寡聞，但平心而論，這場戰爭稱之為“漢尼拔戰爭”其實也是一點也不為過的說法，迦太基倒比較像是剛好被綁上了戰車而已。畢竟它也是作者所說的“希臘化大遊戲”的其中一員，對於角逐自己利益所在的土地是很有興趣，但對於徹底征服羅馬則就意興闌珊了。這或許就能解釋為何迦太基始終不曾給予漢尼拔最大支持的原因。
可是戰端一開，尤其是對羅馬人來說，就不是隨便可以了局，特別是這個民族只跟被擊敗者和談，不然就是接受毀滅而已。當然，這種“異���”也是漢尼拔本身始料未及的，這從他所採取的戰略中分析即可見端倪。
到底漢尼拔是從何處穿越阿爾卑斯山，這只有觀落陰才有辦法解釋，但經過兩千年的變化，只怕當事人現在也恐怕找不到當時的痕跡了。而且那也不重要，關鍵在於它確實是一招絕妙好棋，把戰火燃燒到義大利本土，讓羅馬人焦頭爛額，至少有十幾年內都沒辦法打迦太基的歪主意。
而漢尼拔的戰略意圖，正如學界共識的，是企圖藉由百戰百勝來削弱羅馬的威望與實力，進而分化其內部的聯盟，最終達到逼上談判桌。從這點上看來，實際上漢尼拔本身的觀念也沒有跳脫迦太基的那種“大遊戲”。這或許就能解釋，為什麼他不在坎奈之戰後，立刻馬不停蹄的衝向羅馬的原因吧。但可惜的是，歷史證明了漢尼拔錯失了唯一可以戰勝宿敵的機會。*1
聯盟並沒有如想像中那樣崩解，但漢尼拔卻帶給羅馬自己想像中之外的改變。
首先，這是一場堅苦卓絕的長期戰爭，對敵我雙方都是。前面我們說過，羅馬的軍事體制在過去基本上是城邦公民兵，不跳脫那種依照農業收成週期的方式運作。但與迦太基的作戰嚴重破壞了這種模式，士兵們的服役時間拉長到影響其根本無法顧及田園財產的地步。再加上與漢尼拔的對抗中的破壞與焦土戰術，南義大利的所謂小農經濟結構被徹底打亂，導致很多士兵就算平安退伍，也無法回到過去的日子。
而本書作者歐康納一再提到的“坎奈的幽靈”更是羅馬人最令人省思的地方。相對於迦太基人把戰敗的將領毫不留情的處死，他們顯然對於法羅相當的寬大，但是呢，百思不得其解的是，他們卻對坎奈的倖存者極為嚴厲。或許是認為他們違背了戰前堅守崗位的誓言，但羅馬人卻也不願意把奮戰到最後被俘的人贖回，或許真的是時空背景的差異吧！不論如何，這些遭到殘酷對待的老兵，唯一的解脫之道，就是等待一位救主出來帶領他們平反，與此同時，他們也將向那人宣誓，從此進入軍閥的時代.....*2
羅馬的體制是軍政不分家的，執政官短暫的任期中，一旦出外領兵，往往需要顧及時間，而影響其作戰的判斷。這在早期還沒發生太多致命的事件，但對抗漢尼拔時就暴露無遺。於是乎，羅馬人不斷的被迫延長一些優秀的指揮官的任期，賦予更多領兵的權限，甚至，在證明漢尼拔只能被跟他同等級的人所打敗時，當西比奧出現，他們也只能放任這位年輕人不斷的打破羅馬的傳統，建立起個人的權威，最終成為後來出現的馬略、蘇拉，甚至是龐培、凱撒的先驅。
特別是那些流離失所，得不到共和國善待的士兵，更只能依賴這些野心勃勃的明星人物後，羅馬內戰的因子就已經伏下了。
這就是漢尼拔給予羅馬人最大的報復。
本書原文大約至此結束，譯者翁嘉聲老師自行再撰寫了一份文章補充關於“漢尼拔的遺產”。迦太基毀滅後，羅馬很快就進入到格拉古兄弟改革，這個共和末期的先兆上。基本上這個事件也是建立在在之前戰爭中遭到破壞的小農經濟跟士兵流離失所的社會問題，而且這些都因為羅馬的征服戰車嚴重脫序的加快，而超乎元老院所能控制跟政治體制改革所能追上的範圍內。當然，這往前追又可以說到因為公民兵制度的破壞導致馬略正式的職業軍化使征服步伐加快，而制度的破壞則始於漢尼拔戰爭.....最後蘇拉的登場實際上只是徹底脫序版的西比奧，在那個時代已經不是一個老加圖就可以活活把他氣死，當大格拉古的鮮血流下時，即代表早期那種共識型政治的完結，而蘇拉企圖以暴止暴的結果反而是樹立了典範，真正的補了共和國一刀。
套句之前某句經典的台詞：「但是蘇拉，我們回不去了。」
本書的作者歐康奈是位軍事作家，他的背景使他在撰寫一些戰爭場面跟制度與細節上，顯得額外的細膩，特別是對於坎奈之戰戰後的那些描述上，更是讓筆者為之驚艷。他的論點有幾分原創，不得而知，但他確實是引用了不少學者的觀點，而且整體邏輯上都很有條理跟說服力。在國外就算了，在中文著作中本書可以是高度推薦的作品，甚至暫時找不到堪差比擬了。翁嘉聲老師的翻譯大體上是令人滿意的，除了某些句子的結構上有點詭異跟不通順外，沒什麼好挑剔的，尤其是筆者在被簡體書訓練腦補的功力到爐火純青的境況下，不用動到這技能實在太美好了(喂)。廣場的裝訂也是如過去幾本那樣的水平，當然，校訂上也是....(汗)，封底就兩個錯字，內容上也有四五個，倒是還可以接受啦，算是有相當進步了。
最後，筆者還是要大力推薦本書，不管是對羅馬史感興趣的，還是熱愛戰爭史的，都應該看看這本難得的佳作。
*1：不過，筆者有理由相信，如果是漢尼拔來指揮打蘇德戰爭，結果就大不相同了。
當然這只是一種異想天開，我只是想表示他的策略沒有錯誤，只是倒楣碰上羅馬
這怪胎。
*2：作者歐康奈說：「任何國家都該好好對待自己的老兵。」絕對是至理名言。
馬基維利對此也多有批評。
勘誤：
Pag. 110：“附”出→付
Pag. 143：“趕”到→感
Pag. 219的地圖：“旗”兵→騎
Pag. 250：“特”使→將
Pag. 301：馬謝勒斯傳“28”→多字？
Pag. 354：“合”約→和
======================
附記，坦白說，簡體版的翻譯比較順。
國內西方上古史的著作有稍微增加，但關於漢尼拔的書印象中當屬麥田的那本最知名，只是它已然絕版，要去圖書館尋找了。至於那三部曲的小說更是知者少之又少了。
如果有所謂的西方四大名將，那麼漢尼拔是其中知名度最低的，應當也不意外才是。
這本書也許可以填補上這個空白，在台灣來說。
整部羅馬千年史，基本上個人認為最迷人的，還是莫過於第二次布匿克戰爭及共和末到帝國初這兩個時期，特別是前者，幾乎可以說是一場張力十足，精采萬分的“歷史劇作”。以棒球比賽來說，羅馬在一開局就被漢尼拔這個投手兼第四棒壓制，然後局局丟分，最後第三局(坎奈)更是被打了支滿貫，定下大局。但敗者一方卻沒有放棄，依然慢慢努力的追比數，終於在第七局上半找來了救援投手(法比烏斯)壓住失分，然後九下再由代打(西比奧)敲了支再見滿貫紅不讓(查馬會戰)逆轉乾坤。這在現實中的比賽也是極為罕見。
而在這精采故事的背後，隱藏著改變後來地中海世界走向的因子，這是筆者之前閱讀所不曾有的，也是筆者大力推崇本書的原因。
羅馬人能夠成為地中海世界的霸主，原因有很多，除了武力之外，一般共識在於他們的擴張型態的與眾不同。比起其他國家的征服後徹底毀滅，或者是本書作者所稱的“希臘化大遊戲”(僅限於威望的角逐而非戰略上的征服的大國鬥爭)，羅馬早期即以一種緩慢但有計畫性的方式在擴張，他們把所有被征服的敵人都收編上自己的戰車，培育成利益的共同體，致力於“羅馬化”。這是非常不同的一種擴張方式，在上古時代恐怕只有亞歷山大的短命帝國堪差比擬。但羅馬本身還是那個時代的城邦的一員，非職業化的軍隊體系，使他們的擴張只能是緩慢的步調，直到漢尼拔的出現。
當然，第一次與迦太基的戰爭，那種長期性的僵持即以展露出羅馬如果想要持續的擴張，必須要有點改變。而跟這個擋在他們稱霸路上最大的敵人的對決是一種必然性，顯而易見，但在第二次布匿克戰爭後，老加圖持續堅持非要滅亡迦太基不可，根據某些史家的說法，則有階級上的利益衝突之關係了。但不管如何，被拔掉武力後反而憑藉著商業而更加繁榮的迦太基，會招惹羅馬更深的忌恨是不難想像的，大家只要回想一下八零年代美國人怎麼看日本人就可知道了。
但在這之前，點燃第二次戰火的，卻不是羅馬人，而是來自於巴卡家族的漢尼拔。
很少有像這樣由一個家族對於一個國家的怨恨而開啟戰端的其他例子，或許是筆者孤陋寡聞，但平心而論，這場戰爭稱之為“漢尼拔戰爭”其實也是一點也不為過的說法，迦太基倒比較像是剛好被綁上了戰車而已。畢竟它也是作者所說的“希臘化大遊戲”的其中一員，對於角逐自己利益所在的土地是很有興趣，但對於徹底征服羅馬則就意興闌珊了。這或許就能解釋為何迦太基始終不曾給予漢尼拔最大支持的原因。
可是戰端一開，尤其是對羅馬人來說，就不是隨便可以了局，特別是這個民族只跟被擊敗者和談，不然就是接受毀滅而已。當然，這種“異���”也是漢尼拔本身始料未及的，這從他所採取的戰略中分析即可見端倪。
到底漢尼拔是從何處穿越阿爾卑斯山，這只有觀落陰才有辦法解釋，但經過兩千年的變化，只怕當事人現在也恐怕找不到當時的痕跡了。而且那也不重要，關鍵在於它確實是一招絕妙好棋，把戰火燃燒到義大利本土，讓羅馬人焦頭爛額，至少有十幾年內都沒辦法打迦太基的歪主意。
而漢尼拔的戰略意圖，正如學界共識的，是企圖藉由百戰百勝來削弱羅馬的威望與實力，進而分化其內部的聯盟，最終達到逼上談判桌。從這點上看來，實際上漢尼拔本身的觀念也沒有跳脫迦太基的那種“大遊戲”。這或許就能解釋，為什麼他不在坎奈之戰後，立刻馬不停蹄的衝向羅馬的原因吧。但可惜的是，歷史證明了漢尼拔錯失了唯一可以戰勝宿敵的機會。*1
聯盟並沒有如想像中那樣崩解，但漢尼拔卻帶給羅馬自己想像中之外的改變。
首先，這是一場堅苦卓絕的長期戰爭，對敵我雙方都是。前面我們說過，羅馬的軍事體制在過去基本上是城邦公民兵，不跳脫那種依照農業收成週期的方式運作。但與迦太基的作戰嚴重破壞了這種模式，士兵們的服役時間拉長到影響其根本無法顧及田園財產的地步。再加上與漢尼拔的對抗中的破壞與焦土戰術，南義大利的所謂小農經濟結構被徹底打亂，導致很多士兵就算平安退伍，也無法回到過去的日子。
而本書作者歐康納一再提到的“坎奈的幽靈”更是羅馬人最令人省思的地方。相對於迦太基人把戰敗的將領毫不留情的處死，他們顯然對於法羅相當的寬大，但是呢，百思不得其解的是，他們卻對坎奈的倖存者極為嚴厲。或許是認為他們違背了戰前堅守崗位的誓言，但羅馬人卻也不願意把奮戰到最後被俘的人贖回，或許真的是時空背景的差異吧！不論如何，這些遭到殘酷對待的老兵，唯一的解脫之道，就是等待一位救主出來帶領他們平反，與此同時，他們也將向那人宣誓，從此進入軍閥的時代.....*2
羅馬的體制是軍政不分家的，執政官短暫的任期中，一旦出外領兵，往往需要顧及時間，而影響其作戰的判斷。這在早期還沒發生太多致命的事件，但對抗漢尼拔時就暴露無遺。於是乎，羅馬人不斷的被迫延長一些優秀的指揮官的任期，賦予更多領兵的權限，甚至，在證明漢尼拔只能被跟他同等級的人所打敗時，當西比奧出現，他們也只能放任這位年輕人不斷的打破羅馬的傳統，建立起個人的權威，最終成為後來出現的馬略、蘇拉，甚至是龐培、凱撒的先驅。
特別是那些流離失所，得不到共和國善待的士兵，更只能依賴這些野心勃勃的明星人物後，羅馬內戰的因子就已經伏下了。
這就是漢尼拔給予羅馬人最大的報復。
本書原文大約至此結束，譯者翁嘉聲老師自行再撰寫了一份文章補充關於“漢尼拔的遺產”。迦太基毀滅後，羅馬很快就進入到格拉古兄弟改革，這個共和末期的先兆上。基本上這個事件也是建立在在之前戰爭中遭到破壞的小農經濟跟士兵流離失所的社會問題，而且這些都因為羅馬的征服戰車嚴重脫序的加快，而超乎元老院所能控制跟政治體制改革所能追上的範圍內。當然，這往前追又可以說到因為公民兵制度的破壞導致馬略正式的職業軍化使征服步伐加快，而制度的破壞則始於漢尼拔戰爭.....最後蘇拉的登場實際上只是徹底脫序版的西比奧，在那個時代已經不是一個老加圖就可以活活把他氣死，當大格拉古的鮮血流下時，即代表早期那種共識型政治的完結，而蘇拉企圖以暴止暴的結果反而是樹立了典範，真正的補了共和國一刀。
套句之前某句經典的台詞：「但是蘇拉，我們回不去了。」
本書的作者歐康奈是位軍事作家，他的背景使他在撰寫一些戰爭場面跟制度與細節上，顯得額外的細膩，特別是對於坎奈之戰戰後的那些描述上，更是讓筆者為之驚艷。他的論點有幾分原創，不得而知，但他確實是引用了不少學者的觀點，而且整體邏輯上都很有條理跟說服力。在國外就算了，在中文著作中本書可以是高度推薦的作品，甚至暫時找不到堪差比擬了。翁嘉聲老師的翻譯大體上是令人滿意的，除了某些句子的結構上有點詭異跟不通順外，沒什麼好挑剔的，尤其是筆者在被簡體書訓練腦補的功力到爐火純青的境況下，不用動到這技能實在太美好了(喂)。廣場的裝訂也是如過去幾本那樣的水平，當然，校訂上也是....(汗)，封底就兩個錯字，內容上也有四五個，倒是還可以接受啦，算是有相當進步了。
最後，筆者還是要大力推薦本書，不管是對羅馬史感興趣的，還是熱愛戰爭史的，都應該看看這本難得的佳作。
*1：不過，筆者有理由相信，如果是漢尼拔來指揮打蘇德戰爭，結果就大不相同了。
當然這只是一種異想天開，我只是想表示他的策略沒有錯誤，只是倒楣碰上羅馬
這怪胎。
*2：作者歐康奈說：「任何國家都該好好對待自己的老兵。」絕對是至理名言。
馬基維利對此也多有批評。
勘誤：
Pag. 110：“附”出→付
Pag. 143：“趕”到→感
Pag. 219的地圖：“旗”兵→騎
Pag. 250：“特”使→將
Pag. 301：馬謝勒斯傳“28”→多字？
Pag. 354：“合”約→和
======================
附記，坦白說，簡體版的翻譯比較順。
Displaying 1 - 30 of 265 reviews