Scipio Africanus - Greater Than Napoleon

Another review has been completed for our Roman Books section, thanks to community member Divi Filius.

Greater than Napoleon is stretching it a bit IMHO.

Greater than Napoleon is stretching it a bit IMHO.

How so?

I'm guessing that DF isn't a big fan of Scipio Africanus or rather B.H Liddel Hart blowing his trumpet.

Great Review by the way DF!

The review was well written, your thesis however I cannot agree with. Shouldn't a man who defeated the first tactician be lauded?

Napoleon came close to conquering Europe in a time when it was thought impossible. Scipio Africanus took the strongest army at the time and studied Hannibal and knew how to counter his elephant charges. Scipio Africanus does not get a lot of credit I agree, but does not deserve that much.

True, Liddell-Hart should have at least bothered to write up a comparison between the two. Like DF points out in the review, Liddell-Hart does completely over-exaggerate Scipio's achievements not that Scipio was a useless commander or anything.

Like I've said before an Excellent review DF!

Having just received my copy of this book through the post I was somewhat dismayed to read such a scathing review by Divi Filius. Let me immediately say that I have not yet read enough of the work to agree or disagree with DF's review, but I have read enough to see exactly what he means by dismissing it as sheer panegyric. However, I am in the happy position of being a Scipio novice, if an enthusiastic one, so I will accept the work for what it is and hope that it furthers my knowledge of the great man.

What I would say, in agreement with DF, is that I am already somewhat disappointed (having only reached Chapter 3) with the way Liddell-Hart has presented his material. Huge passages are simply quoted from Livy or Polybius - and as I have just completed Livy's account, I feel as though I am going over exactly the same ground without reaching any measured conclusion. The quotations are even worked into the narrative as though they are the author's own words, which I find annoying. As for the arguments advanced so far, I am allowing for the fact that this book was written in the 1920s when many historians, military or otherwise were questioning the morality of war following the slaughter of the First World War. In the present Chapter dealing with the siege of Cartagena, for instance, Liddell-Hart feels obliged to excuse Scipio's behaviour when taking the town - or rather his troops' behaviour - and he is at pains to stipulate the difference here. Of course, these days, historians would not feel it necessary to defend the strategies and tactics of ancient warfare from a purely moral standpoint. But Liddell-Hart goes one step further - and I think this is the kind of thing that has annoyed DF. After condemning the initial slaughter of the townsfolk and excusing it as an ancient measure, he then proceeds to praise Scipio for his forebearance and generous treatment of the prisoners. This was such an obvious device that it appeared a little ham-fisted to me.

But I will persevere and perhaps report back when I have finished the work. At least the endless repetition of Livy is fixing the historical chronology firmly in my head!

This is one of the many other statements in Liddell Hart

I read that book an age ago. I don't think that L-H either denigrated or detracted from anyone. Remember that Scipio gained an empire while his nation was in great peril; Napoleon lost one. That is not to say that Napoleon was not a great general. Were it not for Scipio, the West might possibly be the East today. Scipio had a grand strategy and used tactics to deny Hannibal his source of re-supply; to engage Hannibal on his (Scipio's) terms; and to cut the enemy off at its head (Zama). Who else could L-H have cited aside from Polybius and Livy? I believe that the review reflects more the prejudices of the reviewer than a critique of the book.

The review was well written, your thesis however I cannot agree with. Shouldn't a man who defeated the first tactician be lauded?

He should, but I simply felt that the extent to which it is done in this book is too far. It's one thing to praise, another thing to make the claim that somehow the Romans could have saved Europe from the Dark Ages and the barbarian invasions if they had just followed a policy of Scipio's which simply does not exist.

Sounds right to me. BTW, what did the author say about Napoleon? It's impossible hard to judge whether X is greater than Y if you're only told the magnitude of X.

There are some vague comparisons here and there. However they in no way warranted the title of the book. A title obviously there to bring attention to the audience of it's time.

I think that Leiddel Hart's biograpghy about Scipio is very reliable

Reliable possibly for the layman with only the most basic knowledge of the history in question. Any modern work(unfortunately Scullards is no longer in print, a far superior work) is likely to be considerably better then this brief work.

My main gripe is that his interpretation could have been worth more had there been more evidence used, which there wasn't.

I'm guessing that DF isn't a big fan of Scipio Africanus or rather B.H Liddel Hart blowing his trumpet.

Quite the contrary. I consider Scipio Africanus among my favorite figures of Roman history, and at times I have found myself ardently defending him against the "Hannibalophils".

I just feel that today there are a number of more scholarly works out there.

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

Marvel

I think that Leiddel Hart's biograpghy about Scipio is very reliable

 

Reliable possibly for the layman with only the most basic knowledge of the history in question. Any modern work(unfortunately Scullards is no longer in print, a far superior work) is likely to be considerably better then this brief work.

 

I'm not sure what you mean with better. Do you care to give a couple of exampls?