Brian Caven

There may be a few too many bricks here for the total supply of cornerstone.

As far as the writing goes, this is an excellent history of the three Punic Wars, in which Rome first stopped Carthagian expansion, then curtailed the city of Carthage, then destroyed it. It is easy to understand, straightforward, and even exciting.

The question is, is it accurate? Our sources are extremely meagre -- we have nothing at all from the Carthaginian side, a few bits and pieces from Greek observers (notably Polybius), and some Roman records which are likely to be highly distorted. It isn't enough information (as author Caven himself admits), and what we have is thoroughly one-sided.

This forces historians to be very, very cautious. And Caven is not. He has no footnotes, and admits to a certain degree of hypothesizing -- let's face it, guessing. The guesses are reasonable; he puts together a coherent explanation of the Wars. As an introduction to the era, it is very good. But it may not be the last word.… (plus d'informations)

In 246 bc, over an initial misunderstanding in Sicily, and for 118 years thereafter, the greatest armies and fleets in the world fought. Caven argues that the pre-occupation of the African oligarchs with their commercial profits blinded them to the militant sense of "honor" which was driving Rome's aristocracy. The Romans, against the admonitions of Scipio Africanus, razed Carthage in 146 BC. This example of current scholia does not mention any Roman horror of "child sacrifice" which was the explanation offered by Chesterton.… (plus d'informations)