Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon

Perhaps my use of the word(s) 'modest' a tad too much, but it is still fair, in my opinion. I've read this book more times than I care to count, and continue to enjoy it on each occasion. There is little that I can fault it for, and so that is what I will do.While it is a smooth and enjoyable read, even for laymen, the good Captain's language can come across as pretentious, and it is sometimes unfortunate that he makes no effort to cover this up. However, such occurrences are few throughout the course of this, albeit short book, and largely confined to the political phases of the biography, I suppose to downplay his distaste for Cato. And his comparisons with Frederick II, Napoleon and other later commanders, while they may be true, are for the most part unnecessary, as the skill of an individual need not be judged by comparison, particularly in the case of someone so talented in the various facets of war (moral, political, logistical, grand strategic, strategic, operational and tactical... a point of which Liddell Hart makes that I feel too few authors do about the skills of other generals they so loudly trumpet) to the extent that you need only look to his achievements as a private citizen, let alone as a servant of Rome.All in all, an engrossing read of an oft-overlooked or dismissed commander, possessing of a certain greatness of mind so lacking in many with whom he is compared (though, not, rather ironically, Hannibal).

After reading this book I definitely have a new found respect for Africanus and agree that he should be talked about in the same breath as the great generals of the ancient world. However the author does try to downplay the achievements of other greats stating that Caesar only beat useless tribes in Gaul and even hints that his victory over Pompey was nothing but dumb luck. The author even goes to say that all of his achievements were because of him building upon his uncle Marius victories. In a political sense Caesar did use this to gain votes but ever roman statesman used the achievements of their families to further their careers Africanus probably did the same at one point in his career. Alexander is also mentioned as beating opponents who could never really pose a threat to his army in battle. The author has convinced me of Scipio Africanus's greatness however everyone should read up on the other greats from other sources.

In their decling years Scipio met with Hannibal who he had vanquished and asked who in Hannibal's mind was the greatest general."Alexander" did Hannibal reply"And second best?""Pyrrus""And the third?""Myself""And if you had beaten me?""Then I would have counted myself first" did Hannibal reply.Scipio is without doubt one of the greatest military geniuses of antiquity and should deserve a better place in history. Liddle Hart presents a strong case in his favor but that is rather a weakness than a strength in this book.For the most part the book reads like a good fictional novel, its text is smooth and you feel that you get to know Scipio quite well and his brilliance shines without Liddle Hart attempting his comparisons to other generals of old. I found his comparisons unneccessary and sometimes a bit too much, regardless of their truth. But the book is good enough that this is only a minor annoyance ans for the most part I found it quite good. I read it after reading Hannibal by Ernle Bradford and I found that they complemented each other very well. Easily 4 stars and for the low price it is well worth the buy.

A page turning account of Scipio' life, particularly of course focusing on the war with Carthage and Hannibal. It's unfortunate that the quality is so poor. Cheap paper and amateur looking. Content excellent.

For me the most interesting thing about this work is how it reflects immediately post World War One military thought. Liddell Hart casually refers to the experience of his generation and the military events of the twenties. The book lacks some of the "told you so" stuff that features in his later works (which I still like) on WWI and WWII.I think he overstates his case for Scipio Africanus. Not greater than Napoleon. No way. He was a respected member of the Roman aristocracy; his Dad was a big general and he had a great number of advantages. Napoleon came from nothing, won a series of astonishing victories and was only beaten when the whole world was ranged against him. Duffing up a few Carthaginian mercenaries does not put Scipio in the same league. The only soldier to compare with Napoleon (and in my mind still not favourably) is Alexander the Great.

Roman history captivates me every time and it was really interesting to read about such an important character that shaped Europe like no other.

I can't understand why there hasn't been more written about this brilliant General. He was a master tactician a great peace maker and ambassador. He was ever at the mercy of jealousy at the hands of the Senate ( Cato in particular). After his brilliant conquest of Spain where he defeated 3 great generals he was side-lined.He raised his own army and landed in North Africa outnumbered but defeated Hannibal. Why is he not remembered for this? Hannibal outnumbered him and was on his own ground.Other commentators reviewing this book and General claim Napoleon as the greatest general and whilst he was brilliant in his early years he wasn't so at Borodino and Waterloo. Scipio had no such defeats and was fighting a worthy adversary.Liddell Hart style isn't too stuffy and is entertaining to read. It is also interesting to note that he writes only 8 years after the first World War and shows some remarkable insight and almost predicts what is to come with the second world war.I have read this book 3 times now and will undoubtedly read it again