Hannibal

Sounds like an interesting book. I can understand that the author is not too enamored of Carthage as the Carthaginians and their forefathers the Phonecians were a bunch of child-sacrificing savages. Moloch was a Phoenician/Canaanite idol. Scipio Africanus did a good job on them. 
One of the things I like about the study of history is that one doesn't have to had read the "latest" book about something, or someone, in order to be well informed. Of course there are numerous recent history books which are worthwhile, but reading a book on Roman History written 80-100 years back will give anyone, who is interested, a good idea of the time. Much of what is written today is simply an author trying to put a "modern" slant on things in order to sell books. There is also the trend to dumb-down serious subjects in order to gain a more wide-spread audience. I can guarantee that the majority of today's yutes would have great difficulty reading any history written in the 19th century. The language is much more sophisticated than that which one generally encounters in modern books. 

Questions that comes to mind: "Was the world full of psychopaths 2,500 years ago? Is it more full of them today?"

I would bet 10 to 1 that Dr. Quinn is a "progressive" i.e. one of those people who believe in the theory that mankind can and should move forward, improve and become "better" meaning more moral in the way that they understand moral. That she tries to make excuses for the crime of child sacrifice shows she knows it is wrong.

But these same people are quite happy today to basically revert to, and approve, barbaric practices, such as abortion, which they logically should have disavowed given their "belief" in progress.

They seem to think they can move forward by going backward. The lack of self-awareness is stunning. Or perhaps they are just dishonest.

There is no question of that. Whatever errors occur in earlier eras, they can't match the endemic intellectual dishonesty and moral confusion of the present era. This isn't pining for the nostalgia of another era. It's recognizing that most of what is considered "scholarly" is simply a severely skewed view of history via Cultural Marxism.

According to this entry, this book in question was published in 1891. It's difficult to tell from the Amazon listing because they list 2012 for the eBook and 2015 for the hardcover. But I assumed that this book was much older than that. And, indeed, apparently it is.

The author clearly has an affinity for the Romans:



The problem with finishing this 682 page book is me. Already this is full of minutia and I might find it hard to stay with it. I prefer histories painted with broader strokes rather than yet another retelling of how the Roman soldier was equipped.

And the descriptions are fine, as far as it goes. But this is a case where a picture (or illustration) would be worth a thousand words in regards to Roman formations and such.

He does paint a good picture early-on about how integral military service was to the Romans. It was indeed a commitment. But it was considered an honor. And by the time you reached the age of 17 where service was mandatory, you had already trained a lifetime for this. The author says the Roman culture and style surpassed even the Spartans in terms of military effectiveness.

Flash forward 2500 years or so when our military leaders put an emphasis on Weirdos, not combat effectiveness. I don't think the Romans could have ever understood us or would have wanted to.

I believe this book should be seen as one of the original popular histories about the Roman soldier, not another retelling. Of course there had been histories written about the Roman Empire before this time, but most were written for the scholar. One should also not forget that many of the readers of ancient history at the time read Latin and Greek, so didn't need English translations. 

Through the wonders of Kindle, you are now able to read one of the earlier popular studies on the Roman soldier, on which later books were, no doubt, based or borrowed from. 

As a side note, the book you are reading is part of a larger study of war which the author wrote over many years. The author was an American who has served in the Civil War. (For the North) He died in 1909 while living in Europe.

That's the type of detail I like.    Others who read R&T may not have studied as much history as we three. I think they might like to hear some of the details without having to delve into historical tomes. Although I am not a big user of social media, I have seen few sites which have the broad experience, breath of interest and general learning that is present at R&T. If that sounds arrogant, I apologize, but I call's em like I sees em. 

While the Greek colonies were more abundant across southern Italy and Sicily, they also had settlements on the Iberian Peninsula. The Phoenicians were there first, but the Greeks followed. 

There is some evidence that the Phoenicians made it to Cornwall in order to buy tin. The tin mines of Cornwall were still operating just a few decades ago.  Having been closely connected to the tin business, I love that type of history. 

I have always had the ability to mentally place myself in the histories or novels I am reading. I don't mean a little bit. I mean I can get so involved as to just about believe I am there taking part in the narrative.  A teacher I had in a summer course noticed this when I was 12 years old.  Once I have enough information about a person or subject, I can formulate a meta-verse. I have never needed technology to do this. Luckily, I can step out of that virtual world when I want to. But being able to do this makes what might be dry reading for others, very real for me. I don't just read what happened, I feel it, experience it.  It is not day dreaming. I can do that as well. 

I enjoy broad brush history, but often find that the explanations as to why things happened, this or that way, are lacking or superficial. Let me give an example. In the English historical tradition, Napoleon has generally been blamed for trying to conquer Europe out of purely egomaniacal motives. The reader is often left to question why he didn't stop when he was ahead. 

There is little doubt that Bonaparte had a huge ego and chose to cross some lines and go to some places he had better left alone. But if one looks at it more closely, one can clearly see that no matter what he tried, the British and various aristocratic houses of Europe would have hounded him, Republican France and the Empire to the end. The only viable option he ever had was to completely subject all of continental Europe.  "Perfidious Albion" would never rest as long as there was any chance to ally with any power and defeat Napoleon.  Even then they would not have given up.  In effect, Napoleon's choices were 1)give up the Revolution and allow the Bourbons to return to the throne or 2) fight to the end. There was no in between. This came to me very powerfully sometime in the last year after having read a few books, not all of which were directly related to the period.   

I want to get to why and how things happened, and how the relation between the how and why effects things. Everything is connected. Although I cannot see all the connections I want to see as many as I can, for sure the important connections. The study of history helps me see contemporary connections which I likely would have missed.  The more I read, the more I see there is to learn.  

If it was in Cornwall, you can be about 100% sure it was a tin mine. The U.K. is not rich in metallic ores. Coal and a number of different clays are what I am familiar with. I used to deal with the last tin smelter in the U.K., but at that time it was the world leader in treating complex and dirty ores. 
Tin is required to make bronze so it was vital for the bronze age. 
I think it is, but it can cause me to get so involved that I don't notice that hours have gone by while I have been reading. 
The apple cart is what's most important. For hundreds of years, the Brits' main foreign policy goal was the so-called "balance of power" on the European Continent. The Revolution in France upset this, because it released the idea of "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" across the board, including England. Things got worse when the French executed Louis and Marie Antoinette. But the moment the French started exporting the Revolution and kicking the asses of various enemy armies, from Italy to Germany the die was absolutely cast. From that time forward, the Brits were never going to let things go. Their commercial interests around the world were at stake and for these interests they were willing to pay, and ally themselves with, any and everyone. This started was before Napoleon was of any great importance. 

In some regards, it might be seen, in part, as a continuation of the centuries old rivalry between France and England which went back to the struggles between the French kings and the Plantagenets of England. (12th to 15th centuries.)