The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization - Carthage Must Be Destroyed

This is a very good general account of Carthage. Aimed at a broad audience, this is probably a good summary of recent scholarship on Carthage. Any book on Carthage faces the major obstacle of the rather limited information on Carthage. Surviving Carthaginian documentation is scanty with the great majority of historical information coming from partial Greek and Roman historian supplemented by epigraphic and archaeological data. A good deal of this book is a careful recounting and analysis of historical accounts from surviving Greek and Roman historians.

Miles opens with a general discussion of Carthage's Phoenician roots and Phoenician expansion into the western Mediterranean. Miles emphasizes what is likely to have been a considerable degree of cultural cross-fertilization and syncretism that accompanied Phoenician and Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean and their interactions with native cultures. He is particularly good on religious syncretism, something that clearly had considerable importance during the Punic Wars.

About half the book is devoted to the Punic Wars. This is largely a careful interpretation of the work of Livy, Polybius, and others who wrote of these conflicts. Miles takes pains to rebut versions of Carthage as an imperial power bent on domination of the western Mediterranean and instead presents the Romans as the practicioners of an aggressively imperialist system. There is very good narrative of the Punic wars with thoughtful analyses of probable internal Carthaginian politics, the importance of Spain as a Carthaginian colony, the very interesting role of religious identifications and propaganda in the Second Punic War, Hannibal as something of an outsider in the Carthaginian system, and the broad and complicated diplomacy of the Mediterranean world. What Miles ultimately presents is a picture of a relatively varied and cosmopolitan, though very violent, Mediterranean world being brought under Roman political and cultural hegemony.

Given the length of the book, there are understandable omissions. What accounts, for example, for the remarkable regenerative powers of the Roman state? After the first Punic War, the Romans had naval superiority and this clearly had huge implications for the later Punic Wars. The Carthaginians could only move troops between Spain, Italy, and North Africa by land while the Romans could move troops and other resources much more economically. There is a good bibliography.

Carthage is a fascinating topic for a history, and Richard Miles has done a solid job with this rendering of the great civilization. He's clearly read his ancient sources closely, and he is also well up to speed on recent archeological findings. As a result, the book is well thought out and researched.

However, those same strengths some times causes the pace to slow down to where my attention started to drift. I found the book to be a slow starter, but once we got onto how Carthage was established, the book really takes off. I had not appreciated the extent of Carthaginian activity in Spain, nor had I read a detailed explanation of how Hannibal crossed the Alps. Both these sections of the book are riveting. You really can't make stuff like this up because no one would believe it.

Those of us who learned about Carthage while studying Latin have been given a very one sided view of that city. Miles is very good in showing that Carthage had many virtues, and in fact in his telling, Rome is the nation which acts like a precursor to 'perfidious Albion.' His discussion at the end of the book at how Vergil's Aeneid implicitly takes the Romans to task for their conduct of the war and their manipulation of their creation myth to justify inexcusable acts of savagery is quite thought provoking.

Another strength of the book is its maps. It seems like a lot of publishers have decided to not include maps these days. Fortunately, Miles's publisher did not do that. There are 16 maps in the book and they are all very helpful. I would have preferred that they all be in a central place in the book with the text referring to each map by number because there are places in the book where Miles will call out an obscure city (pp. 42-3) in Sardinia which we don't see the map of until page 66. I did find myself flipping back and forth a bit, although it also says that the maps are very good. They have just the right amount of detail to keep the story moving.

I think this is a fine book for someone who wants to learn more about Carthage and the ancient Mediterranean world. You may get a bit more attention to creation myths and archeology than you might want, but there is a ripping good yarn in here and when Miles gets into the military campaigns, the pages really do turn themselves.

This was an excellent book, but a little dull. It is (as others have noted) the most uptodate scholarly summary of how much and how little we know. Much of the book is devoted to coins and representations of Heracles/Melqart and so on, from which one teases out larger social shifts and pretensions. This was interesting up to a point, but does bog things down a bit for the general reader. The discussion of the uses of mythology for political purposes was, for me, the most important "takeaway" -- but I have read various of the previous histories. For the general reader, however, maybe something a bit more racy is indicated. I longed for some description of the landscapes we were being led through, and some deeper discussions of the dynamics of Rome in the various periods at issue. There are fascinating sidetopics that are never brought up, which one would have thought would be natural fodder for a good storyteller, e.g. the long history of people trying to figure out exactly which pass Hannibal used to cross the Alps (you wouldn't know from the text that there was any controversy, nor would you know which pass -- if any -- the author thought might be the one). In a weird way, the opening prologue set-piece of the final assault on Carthage is misleading: we never get anything so thrilling again.

Ancient Western history intrigues me, and any study of Roman history from before the time of Augustus and the Empire has always included the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. Much of early Roman history is wrapped up in its wars with Carthage, a civilization from across the Mediterranean Sea, on the coast of North Africa. Rome has always been an interesting study, but Richard Miles's Carthage Must Be Destroyed is my first foray into Carthaginian history. It's a wonderful book, though I do wish it had been a bit more than it actually was.

"Carthage must be destroyed" was uttered by Cato the Elder, a Roman statesman and general who fought in the Punic Wars, and is a fitting title for this book--though one that highlights one of the weaknesses of the book as well.

The book jacket promises that this book is a "full scale history" of Carthage. That's not totally accurate. While Miles does convey a great deal of information about how Carthage was formed as a colony of the Phoenicians but ended up becoming greater than its sire, Carthage Must Be Destroyed is almost entirely about Carthage as an empire, not Carthage as a place to live. We read how it became a great empire in itself, with colonies in modern-day Spain and Sicily, and how this eventually forced them to butt heads with the growing Roman influence in the Mediterranean. It's all about foreign affairs, meaning we learn relatively little about what life in Carthage was actually like. This may be due to a lack of sources and thus may not be Miles's fault. Taken as a whole, however, the book does not come as advertised.

That being said, Miles's work is quite comprehensive when it comes to Carthage's foreign relations and empire-building. An archaeologist as well as historian, Miles has led many digs where Carthage stood before its destruction. While he plumbs plenty of written sources and records, he also utilizes archaeological evidence to back up his statements. Many of the notes in the back of the book refer to pottery in certain areas and how inscriptions on the pottery indicate that there was more of a relationship between two civilizations, or money that was minted by certain leaders indicating something else. It's truly fascinating seeing how it's all pieced together.

There are very few Carthaginian written sources available. All of the written material from the time period comes from Roman and Greek historians, most of whom hated the Carthaginians. Miles admits up front that most of the available primary sources may not actually be that reliable. He does an admirable job of sifting through the sources, the archaeological evidence, and other historians' studies of the period to put together an interesting book that holds together quite well.

I much prefer footnotes to endnotes in history books; I hate thumbing back and forth, either having a bookmark on the notes page or my finger. Carthage Must Be Destroyed has an endnotes system, but it is understandable and actually quite useful. I usually stop even looking at the notes--mainly they just quote the source, and the constant flipping of pages gets annoying--but I was riveted to Miles's notes.

This is because he uses the notes section not only to quote his sources but often to also address some ongoing controversies regarding the subject or to clarify exactly what he's talking about. Some of the notes run to a quarter of a page long as he gets into what other historians say about the subject or states why he's going with a particular interpretation of the evidence. With anything greatly controversial, he doesn't merely ignore the side he disagrees with so that the reader doesn't even know that there is a debate. He acknowledges both sides and states why he thinks the way he does. This would sidetrack the narrative of the book itself, but in the notes section, it's great.

Carthage Must Be Destroyed runs the gamut from Carthage's founding to its utter destruction and will keep anybody with any interest in the subject reading long into the night.

Originally published on Curled Up With A Good Book © Dave Roy, 2012

Carthage, once the ruling naval power of the Mediterranean, only to be reduced to dust and ashes after three long protracted conflicts with the Romans. Richard Mills does an excellent job of outlining and writing about the history of Carthage starting from the beginning going all the way even past the end of the cities existence.

The Carthaginians were originally Phoenicians, who originated from the city of Tyre. Assyrian domination and wars in that area forced the Queen Dido to leave Tyre and look for a more pleasant clime. She found it in what is today modern Tunisia. The Phoenicians had been known for setting up trading colonies all over the Mediterranean. These colonies became cities that traded with the locals. The Phoenicians were also master ship builders and their trade empire brought goods from Greece and Europe , plus gold and silver all the way to the Middle East. Of course some goods went the other way as well.

Tyre had relations with the Israelite and even helped build their temple. Their official God was Melquart and the Goddess Astarte. Melquart may have been king Ahab's invention to weaken the power of the priest. The Phoenicians were called Phoenicians because of their renown in producing a purple dye from mollusks. The Phoenicians themselves knew themselves as Canaanites.

The Carthaginians had control over the entire Mediterranean until the onset of the first Punic war with Rome. The first battle happened on the Isle of Sicily and involved the several battle wit the Greek city state Syracuse. After several battles Rome stepped in and took over all of Sicily. The Carthaginians put up a stiff fight but were not match for the steadfast Romans. The Romans conquered Sicily and imposed a very humiliating peace agreement on Carthage. Rome went back on the word several times. This would lead to the second Punic war.

After having lost all their island in the Mediterranean, Hannibal Barca, set up a Phoenician colony in Spain. Something sparked off the second war and the Romans were looking for an excuse. Hannibal did the unthinkable, he marched with a huge mercenary army along several elephants over the Swiss alps and Pyrenees. His forces devastated Rome and Italy for 15 years. The Romans won in the in end after 15 years of bitter war and an humiliating peace agreement.

The third war started when Carthage went to war against the Numidians, allies of Rome. This time Carthage was crushed. Over all great book, the author gives viewpoints of various Greek and Roman Historians and covers how war shaped the viewpoint Greek and Roman societies held of the Carthaginians. The book is a fun easy read and you will learn a lot.

First posted on the store.co.uk on 6 December 2011

This book is certaily a masterpiece of scholarship but it also shows how history can be told in a fascinating way without being academic. As such, it is a rare gem that can satisfy both the "history buff" and the more general reader. The book has numerous other qualities. A number of other reviewers have touched upon some of them already, so I'll try to get it short.

By telling so well the story of the "rise and fall of an ancient civilization", Richard Miles demonstrates and shows all through the book why Caton the Elder was so insistent and persistent in wanting it destroyed. This was far more than just an old ultra-conservative Romam senator that had become somewhat obsessive. Simply put, Carthage was the only opponent around the Mediterranean to hold out so long against against Rome and to threaten it so much. This in itself explains why Rome was so unrelenting and had to raze Carthage to the ground and tried to blacken its name. It also explains, for instance, why Hannibal had to be hunted down across the eastern Mediterranean. Rome had almost lost and was facing a rival that was almost as resilient as itself. Rome, although no Roman would ever admit it, was afraid, too afraid to let live a city that it had deprived of its commercial empire in Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia, of its colonial empire in Spain and of its predominance and home territory in Africa.

However, this book is not only about the contest between the two great powers of the Western Mediterranean. It is far more than that because it tries - and essentially succeeds, despite the odds to tell the history of one of the most elusive civilizations of Antiquity. This is the second "tour de force" of Richard Miles because this is achieved largely in spite of the rather problematic written sources which are essentially Roman or Greek and, in their vast majority, hostile with regards the Carthaginians. The texts of pro-Carthagenian Greek writters have generally not survived, with the exception of a few fragments and quotations, although we know there were some and that Hannibal used some himself as part of his all-out war against Rome (a war which, just like Alexander the Great, included the use of propaganda. This is where Miles use of what are sometimes called tghe auxiliaries of history (geography, archeology, numismatics etc...) become so precious. As Ben Kane mentioned in his review of this book, Georges Lancel's 1995 book on Carthage used to be the reference. Having also read this book (although it is much less accessible), I definitely with him: Carthage must be destroyed has become the NEW reference on Carthage.

The third great merit that I found with this book is that it goes beyond the power plays between the Greeks, the Carthaginians and Rome and it is not just a history of Carthage. Two elements stand out in particular. One is the thorough discussion on Carthagenian (I don't like using the term "punic" because this is who their ennemies seem to have called them) religion, its influences and its evolutions. Another is the last chapter entitled "punic faith", which is largely about how the Roman conquerors wrote the "official" history and distorted the facts and the facts to such an extent that the term "punic faith" in Latin became synomyous of treasonous behavior. This rewritting of history might have started just after the destruction of Carthage. It certainly culminated under Augustus with Titus-Livius in one of the main roles. A careful study of the events tends to show that:
- in the first and third Punic wars, the Romans were clearly the ones spoiling for a fight whereas both the Barcids (and, less obviously, at least part of Carthage's leading citizens) and the Romans wanted the Second War
- when comparing behaviors in each camp, the Romans were at least (and, in my mind, more) ready to break their word and take advantage of circumstances, such as their occupation of Sardinia after the end of the First War while Carthage was to busy fighting for its survival to be able to do anything about it.

I could go one, and on, and on, but I hope by now to have made the point: this is a fabulous book and if there is one book to read about Carthage and one book to offer to someone who likes history, it is this one.

Good stuff, overall. Puts the Punic Wars in their entire context, going all the way back to the Phonecian cities that spawned colonies such as Carthage, and how that battle for supremacy pitted Carthage against a new coming power in Rome. So far so good, and there's plenty of good insights into the broader strategic issues that drove Carthage and Rome in centuries of conflict.
My one quibble is that the strategic overview is slowed down by long, extensive discussions of the role that Heracles/Melqart played in Mediterranean civilization; every time you are hungering to get back to the battle for control of Syracuse or wondering if the Barcids will go rogue in Spain, you get sucked back into long, meandering mythological detours. Doesn't wreck the book, by any means, but does slow it down a bit.

This a thoroughly-researched and well-written book on the history of Carthage. The pace is quick and the narrative is interrupted appropriately when Miles addresses conflicting claims in evidence or discusses recent archaeological discoveries. Miles also explores Carthaginian religion in depth, which is material that I have not encountered elsewhere. The latter half of the book focuses heavily on interactions with Rome and the Punic Wars. A few more maps in this section would have been helpful as the narrative jumps around geographically and the reader cannot always appreciate the movements of the combatants. Readers interested in ancient history will greatly enjoy this book, and the extensive bibliography provides plenty of good future reading.

As the first general history of Carthage in some time, this book presents a modern perspective on the ancient Mediterranean, in which narrow, biased ancient writings are placed in context and tested against archeological evidence. The traditional depiction of implacable hostility between Western "civilized" Greeks and their Roman successors against decadent "barbaric" Levantine Phoenicians, presented by many classical authors for political purposes and adopted by 19th and 20th Century racist and ethnocentric writers who projected attitudes of contemporary Judenhass back to apply to the Carthaginians, is replaced by Miles's description of complex interaction among Greeks, Phoenicians and indigenous cultures. Although battles were frequent, they did not interrupt the continued interchange of goods, ideas and symbols among the Mediterranean peoples.
This is the major thrust of the book and is itself sufficient justification for reading it. Regrettably, this important contribution is diminished by long and persistent digressions into the syncretism between the Greco/Roman Heracles/Hercules and the Punic deity Melquart (Melkart--the basis of given names such as Hamilcar). Miles argues at length that the great general Hannibal and his aides consciously used the parallel with Heracles as a religious accompaniment to warfare in the campaign to undermine Roman pride. These are appealing arguments to an archeologist, as they can be supported to some extent by surviving coinage. This is an inherently provocative thesis and could be the subject of a separate book (though one that would be less appealing to a publisher).
The repeated appearances of Heracles, though sometimes tiresome, would not matter in themselves except that they come at the expense of discussing Carthage. In the end this becomes a book as much about the cult of Heracles as about Carthage. It is discouraging to contemplate all the aspects of life in Carthage that are overlooked or discussed only sketchily. Miles tells us little about the physical development of the city--how it expanded, what materials were used, how buildings were constructed. Similarly, we are told very little about the city's social structure and ethnic composition. What proportion of the population were descendants of the original Phoenician settlers? What was their position in society? What other ethnic groups were present? What occupations did the inhabitants pursue? No estimate of the city's population is provided except at the very end of its existence. Except for the overemphasis on Melkart, who by most accounts was not the city's primary god, there is little discussion of religious practice. In particular, there is almost no mention of the female divinities Astarte and Tanit.
Maps in historical atlases commonly show an extensive Carthaginian empire. Was this ruled as a territorial empire with Carthaginian administrators, or was it in actuality mainly a zone of Carthaginian influence? Indeed, except for sporadic references, Miles does not consistently describe Carthage's form of government, though it was admired by some ancient Greek writers. Carthage was almost continually at war for the last 3 centuries of its existence, but except for the Hannibalic War, which was a special situation, Miles does not elaborate on the Carthaginian military system. The armies were almost always commanded by Carthaginian noblemen, but how were they selected? What was the Carthaginian military tradition? Why, in fact, were so few Carthaginian commanders successful, or even competent? These lapses extend to the navy. Although Carthage was reputedly the mistress of the western Mediterranean, Miles says almost nothing about where the vast numbers of rowers came from, or for that matter, where Carthage acquired enough wood to build enormous fleets of military and commercial vessels.
I could continue in this vein, but I assume the point has been made. It is true that anyone writing about Carthage operates under a severe handicap, since the city's records, which must have been voluminous, were almost totally destroyed, and surviving accounts come from the pens of Carthage's bitter enemies. Nevertheless, I would have preferred for the author to acknowledge that little or nothing was known about topics of vital interest than to ignore them. For this reason, although I would recommend this book as worth reading, I reluctantly cannot give it a higher rating than 3.

After reading a lot of Roman and Greek history books, this was a refreshing account of Carthage. Be warned: the author uses a very high level of vocabulary that I was not accustomed to reading other history books in college. I frequently looked up words which some might find annoying. Overall an excellent book.

Somewhat mistitled, the book is actually a very fine history of Carthage and its founding Phoenicians. Cato and the Punic wars are only the final entry. The book is especially good concerning the legends surrounding founding of Carthage as well as coverage of religion and mythology. Miles examines the probability that Carthaginian oligarchy engaged in the practice of child sacrifice.

Aristotle admired the combination of oligarchy and democracy in Carthage. Miles doesn't get into the workings of government except to mention the Council of Elders and Tribunal of One Hundred and Four. He describes oligarchic control over the military with punishments of generals who failed in Sicily or were suspected of designs on the State.

The book covers the rise of Carthage as founding Phoenicia came increasing under the domination of Assyria, devolving late in the book to the more familiar history of the three Punic wars resulting in the destruction of Carthage. Miles gives it as the only city known to have revived after destruction. Ironically, initial relations between Carthage and Rome were friendly as with trade and territorial treaties in 509 and 348BC. Most interesting is Miles tracing of the religious and mythological background, although it's difficult to separate Carthaginian mythology from Greek. There's a fairly abrupt switch from legend to history after the battle of Himera in 480BC. Miles gives full credit to Greek and Roman sources.

Hannibal was not only a military genius but very adept at propaganda making himself into a sort of reincarnation of Heracles-Melqart to gain support of the Greek cities of Southern Italy.
Scipio's supporters characterized him as a son of Jupiter making the war into a war for favor of the gods as for Italian affections. We see a similar phenomenon in modern politics with many politicians attempting syncretism with Lincoln or Reagan.

For examination of ancient Greek legends and their impact on history the book is a good companion to "The Seduction of Mariam" by Tracy Thorpe. That one contains a somewhat similar examination for Middle Eastern legend and religion and history.

After Cannae the Romans uncharacteristically resorted to consultation of the Delphic oracle as well as some human sacrifice before turning the tables by invasions of first Spain and then N. Africa. After Zama in 202, Carthage recovered in peace as the Romans became embroiled in wars in Asia resulting in jealousies of men like Cato and the final destruction in the third Punic war.

I got a good vocabulary lesson with tophet, suffete, salvific, euharistic, diarchy, Mollusian and probably more. Chronology, maps and illustrations add interest and readability. A single map of the battle of the battle of Cannae doesn't include movements and family trees of Magids and Barcas would have been welcome.

Miles likens Rome's debt to Carthage with its debt to Greece, The book ends with the idea that Carthage played an important role in development of the Roman empire. Memory of Carthage is needed to perpetuate proof of the greatness of Rome. Miles' book is a defining history of Carthage as well as its place in literature.

Overall I enjoyed this book but couldn't help comparing it to Constantinople 1453 which gave a detailed account of the siege and personalities involved.

Carthage gave a more top down overview of the political machinations that gave birth to the city and its final demise.

An interesting read but a detailed account of the siege similar to the prologue would have been more interesting for me.

A good introduction to Carthage and very useful as a reference book. I note there are 140 pages of references so credit to the author for his thorough research.

Very decent book on Carthage - a state whose history we largely know in an amount that the victorious Romans considered enough for us to know. The author, Richard Miles, is an authoritative expert in the field of Ancient History, who looks at Carthage's impressive history from various points of view, striving as much as possible to unrevel true, unblemished face of this Rome's worthy adversary. Strongly recommend. It reads very ironically at times, and scary too. In particular, the moments about Rome's attempts to disguise its purely aggressive politics with noble ideas and double standards. Story of the Third Punic War is a real tragedy...

I would like to review two books, Richard Miles' Carthage Must Be Destroyed and Adrian Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage. Miles' book is an overview of the wars between Rome and Carthage, Goldsworthy's is far more detailed (for example, I learned, for the first time, that a trireme can do 8 knots, pretty speedy when I consider that my sailboat can only go 5). Luckily I read Miles first, which prepared the way for Goldsworthy. The history of these two nations is the continuing story of man's boundless inhumanity to man. Both countries practiced human sacrifice at one time or another, and during one siege Roman throats were slit from atop the walls of a Carthaginian town, in front of their troops, so that the citizens knew they would have no choice but to fight to the end. I was amazed to learn that Hannibal spent 15 years in Italy (15!) and that elephants were less valuable than one would think, as they tended, when wounded, to turn and run, trampling their own troops as they did so. The Romans needed continuous war in order for the spoils to keep the city afloat; the Carthaginians formed a merchant nation. The Romans were totally unbending; the Carthaginians unscrupulous. My own books can be found on the store under Michael Hone.

Carthage is a civilization you normally hear about from one perspective, that of the Romans. This book takes us on the other side. Although so much evidence of this society was destroyed, the author tries to piece together this people and their history. Starting as an offshoot of the Phoenicians, Carthage carved out a highly successful place for itself in the Mediterranean. They were able to harvest crops in Africa, silver in Spain, and trade throughout their sphere of influence. Unfortunately for the Carthiginians, the Romans lived right around the corner. Militarily, Carthage had great generalship at times, but more often than not overreacted to failure. Executing generals after their first failure in battle, never able to learn from their mistakes. Commanders should be able to gather experience and improve, without fear of death at the hands of their own people. This policy combined with restricted resources helped seal Carthage's fate.

Carthage Must Be Destroyed is a pretty fair example of a new style in the writing of ancient history, one that combines a great deal of secondary bibliography with an ideological or polemical fixation usually aimed at debunking traditional interpretations but tends to lack a firm grasp of ancient literature. If Carthage has been portrayed as an enemy of Western civilization, then it must now be reinvented as the equal or superior. If Carthaginian foreign policy has been generally regarded as imperialistic, the tables must now be turned to make Carthage the victim of Greek aggression. It's not a bad gig, really, and it opens the door to hundreds of dissertations and books.

On the whole, Richard Miles is less tendentious than many younger ancient historians and more willing to consider the fine points. His emphasis on the syncretism of Greek and Phoenician culture in Sicily and Sardinia is useful and usually keeps him from demonizing the Greeks. Nonetheless, his treatment of Greek sources is sloppy, and it is not at all clear that he knows Greek--the necessary language, since the best sources on Carthage are written in Greek--or sufficiently understands Greek literature and history. For example, he pops out Herodotus' tale that Gelon of Syracuse was waiting to see which side won (during the invasion of 480) before declaring his allegiance without considering Herodotus' willingness to repeat any story he has heard or Herodotus' generally favorable view of Gelon, whom he does not accuse of Medizing. Besides, even if the story is literally true, it means no more than that Gelon, in the midst of defending Sicily from invasion, could not really spare his forces to fight against the Persians, and, if the Persians won, it would be foolish to declare his enmity. In the same chapter, Miles has a howler--making Theron the brother of Gelon--which, if it is not a typo--would indicate serious deficiencies in his knowledge of Sicilian history.

Miles complains, naturally, of the bias of Greek historians against Carthage and sees it (following the speculative and tendentious work of Edith Hall) as an invention of the fifth century, a piece of propaganda orchestrated by Sicilian Greeks who wanted to claim some of the panhellenic glory won by Athens and Sparta against the barbarians. But the stories and artistic representations of the Hellenic struggle with mythical barbarians antedates the Persian Wars. The Greeks were simultaneously aware of how much they owed to eastern cultures and yet determined to assert their own unique identity. This is no late invention. Miles might also consider the plain fact that the Carthaginians did not produce much of a literature. It is not only that they were eventually defeated by the Romans, since Greeks and Romans did translate and read Carthaginian books, when they were of interest. The truth is that the Carthaginians were a lot like Americans, more interested in getting and spending than in creating anything particularly beautiful or original. This left them, naturally, vulnerable to Greek culture.

Although it is loosely written and ineffectively arranged--his distracting excursus, e.g. on Melqart, should have been turned into appendices--Carthage Must be Destroyed is a valuable contribution and should be read by anyone interested in Carthage and its conflicts with Greece and Rome. If it displays the typical postmodern hatred of the West and enthusiasm for the "other," those faults can be corrected either by rereading Herodotus, Diodorus, and Livy or by looking at the earlier works on ancient history by, for example, Edward Freeman, Bury, Hammond, and even Grote.

I do not have enough knowledge to make an intelligent assessment of the author's account, but I found the book generally engaging, pulling in and situating in time other historical threads of the era such as the death of Archimedes in Syracuse, the supercession of Greece by Rome, etc. A minor quibble: The author referred to corn as one of the staple foods in that era, but corn or maize is native to the Americas so there was no corn in Europe before the New World was discovered. A little research revealed to me that "corn" is a word that predates the introduction of maize and originally meant grain with the seed still in. The author would have done better to use a different term in place of corn.

I take exception to a previous reviewer's characterization of Miles' book as yet another example of the "new style of writing," claiming it to be an "ideological or polemical fixation usually aimed at debunking traditional interpretations" of Western Civilization. I post this as a review of its own for two reasons: the first, I liked the book; I learned something from it; and I wanted the opportunity to give it a five-star rating. Secondly, I did not want the condescending words of the reviewer in question to go unchallenged or hidden beneath the comments section.

The reviewer's need to denigrate the book simply because it is new and does not tow the line on convention wisdom is in my mind disingenuous at best. Have we not heard time and again that every generation reinterprets history in light of it own experience? It seems very plain to me that if, as Dr. Knowles suggests, that Miles is presenting some form of agenda to his writing, then we can easily extrapolate that those books canonized by Knowles too have some agenda; that Victorian ideas, for example, found their way into the books of the time is beyond question. So, what Miles did is no less egregious than Knowles' favored tomes. In these works all sorts of interpretations on the ancient world were used to justify all sorts of things. So why can't Miles take part in this long tradition just because his book isn't 100 years old. The fact that people like Knowles have no interest in letting others tinker with their established (read: correct and unchangeable) world view I find troubling. It seems to show a lack of sophistication and humility.

Carthage, to some degree, is an open book; so little is known of it in comparison to other cultures of the same period. Why is it, as Knowles suggests, improper, nay wrong to examine the situation from a different perspective? If we can learn something from a new look at the subject, should not we be thanking Miles for the work he has done? In addition, is it not expected that Miles brings to his book 21st century attitudes? I would find a new book that parrots the old line a waste of time.

The final comment made by Knowles says the book "displays the typical postmodern hatred of the West" and that these errors can simply be corrected by rereading older books; I find this distasteful and pompous. I think it can be safely argued that this book takes place entirely in the West. The Canaanites/Phoencians/Carthaginians fall squarely into the Western tradition of Judeo-Christian roots. And to insist on the word `hatred' is simply hyperbole meant to scare people. Miles' book makes no such claim to hatred of Rome, or Greece. We have all heard that history is written by the victors. This is the quintessential case. Therefore, is it not understandable, nay expected that a book that discusses the rise and fall of a vanquished civilization from the viewpoint of the vanquished might actually differ from the established books Knowles likes so well?

Page 360 makes a statement that I think is actually quite fair; a statement that I feel is pretty representative of the book as a whole; a statement that does not bring to mind `hatred of the West.' It reads as follows: "Despite Livy's protestations to the contrary, the Carthaginians were demonstrably no less faithless that the Romans during the Second Punic War..." As we read above, Livy's protestations can be viewed as having the same inherent bias as Miles' or any another interpretation; Livy has a reason to write (read: agenda); despite the fact that he is from 2000 years ago, his word is not sacrosanct. All Miles is claiming here is that the Carthaginians were no worse than the Romans. How can that be construed as hating the West?

The Romans writers did a really good job of destroying the reputation of Carthage. They portrayed the Carthaginians as faithless and perfidious, as baby killers, all sorts of bad names. (By the way, Miles does not shy away from the baby killers issue. I think he was quite reasonable: they did it, but it was a ritual far more complex that Roman writers made it out to be.) Is it so surprising that, as Miles writes, that the Romans might have been stretching the truth to suit their needs just as Knowles claims that Miles is stretching the truth to suit his own needs? As it is, even if Miles might actually be right, none of this diminishes the Romans in any way. Otherwise, to suggest that the Romans were never anything but perfect gentlemen is ridiculous.

Miles has done an excellent job researching and presenting this important work. The book is easy to read, insightful, and incredibly interesting. It is indispensable to any student of ancient Near Eastern or early Mediterranean history.

This book is full of facts and is therefore Informative, but it is unenlightened. In its noble attempt to give a Carthaginian perspective on Roman barbarism it turns out to be clumsy, chatty, pious and opinionated.