Los Enemigos De Roma

by Philip Matyszak

Desafiar el poder de Roma era muy arriesgado, y sólo unos pocos de los que se atrevieron a hacerlo consiguieron morir tranquilamente en su cama. Algunos, como Vercingétorix y Yugurta, fueron capturados, exhibidos en triunfo y después, mientras los romanos celebraban su triunfo, asesinados en oscuras mazmorras. Otros, entre los que se encuentran algunos de los mayores rivales de Roma, como Aníbal, Boudicca y Cleopatra, prefirieron suicidarse antes que enfrentarse a la crueldad del imperio. Este libro examina el auge y caída final de Roma desde el punto de vista de los pueblos que se enfrentaron a ella. Sus líderes se guiaron unas veces por la ambición, otras por el odio, el miedo, el juego político o simplemente la codicia. Unos combatieron para conservar sus antiguos modos de vida, algunos para sobrevivir, y otros por amor a la guerra. El lector descubrirá en sus páginas la realidad oculta tras las leyendas del gladiador Espartaco, de Sapur el conquistador, de Viriato el guerrillero y de Mitrídates el consumado envenenador. Algunos de estos enemigos de Roma fueron nobles héroes, otros viles asesinos, pero todos ellos protagonizan una historia única y fascinante.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Roman History, Biography, Historical, Ancient

332 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Philip Matyszak is a British nonfiction author, primarily of historical works relating to ancient Rome. Matyszak has a doctorate in Roman history from St. John's College, Oxford. In addition to being a professional author, he also teaches ancient history for Madingley Hall Institute of Continuing Education, Cambridge University.

Reviews

[Adam McPhee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exactly what it says in the title, just a straight forward rogues' gallery of all the biggest baddies to ever go up against Rome, and all the schemes and atrocities committed by and against them along the way. Perfect summer reading.

[L.G. Estrella · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are looking for an analytical historical treatise on Rome's extensive military history, you will not find it here. If, however, you are looking for writing that gives the enemies of Rome distinct personalities, then this book is for you.

Each of the enemies of Rome described in this book (and they include some favourites like Hannibal and Vercingetorix) is described not only as a military leader but also as a person. The attention paid to the personalities and proclivities of the enemies of Rome may put off the history buff in search of great detail, but it helps move the narrative along at a good pace and engage those less familiar with Roman history.

I consider myself fairly well versed in Roman history. This book cannot compare in terms of depth and analytical skill to some of the more prominent works in this field. However, it is a good and entertaining read - perfectly suitable for reading on the train or bus.

[Olethros · Rating 3 out of 5]

-Se pueden contar muchas cosas de calado sin ceñirse a técnicas académicas estrictas.-

Género. Historia.

Lo que nos cuenta. Aproximación a los grandes desafíos militares que debió enfrentar la Antigua Roma a lo largo de su existencia, desde la Primera Guerra Púnica hasta Atila, centrada en la amenaza, su naturaleza, el desarrollo general del enfrentamiento y, lo que es más importante, las probables actitudes e intenciones de los líderes al frente de los bandos en disputa.

¿Quiere saber más de este libros, sin spoilers? Visite:

http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com....

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a fun book. Particularly enjoyed the author’s musing about what Spartacus would say upon discovering his status as a gay sex symbol.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good cliff-notes version of the history of Rome told through its enemies. It had very few people I had never heard of and gave me a little bit more information on a few that I knew the name but not much else. Its bit on Attila is lacking but good enough for what it is.

The only issue I had with this besides its perfunctory nature is that the author starts with a mission statement saying he was going to show that the enemies of Rome were not the barbarians they are portrayed as in history but thriving cultures that were equal too Rome in their complexities. A bold statement that they then forget about and do next to nothing to support the argument for the rest of the book.

Still a good book and a really nice primer on some interesting characters. Worth a read.

[Tim Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

_The Enemies of Rome_ by Philip Matyszak has as a stated premise the idea that Rome did too good a job of becoming the dominant power in the Mediterranean region. It was not enough that Rome became at the time the major civilization in Europe; it became essentially the only civilization in Europe. Had Rome not crushed the rival powers in the region so completely the Dark Ages might not have ever occurred. When Roman civilization first began to flourish and spread, there were other lively, competing, and different civilizations; the Seleucid Empire in the East, the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt, both legacies of the conquests of Alexander the Great, the urban civilizations of the Hebrews, the Phoenicians, and the Carthaginians, and the rapidly developing and urbanizing Celtic peoples of western Europe (particularly Gaul). Though Rome absorbed much from the peoples it conquered (particularly from the Greek peoples of Greece and Asia Minor), it also created a "monoculture," as the peoples of the Mediterranean faced the choice of "Roman civilization or no civilization," and without a Europe of diverse cultures and civilizations Rome became "sterile, sick, and ossified." When Rome finally fell to the Goths, Franks, and Vandals, there was no civilization to take its place.

Matyszak divided his narrative into four parts, each proceeded by a prologue, outlining the general state of Rome in that period and giving a broad overview of the enemies it faced, followed by individual chapters, each devoted to a particular opponent, focusing primarily upon one individual leader, as most of the threats from other cultures to Rome centered around one leader and generally when that leader was vanquished the threat from that culture (if not the culture itself) ended. There was also an epilogue.

Part one dealt with the birth of the Roman superpower, beginning in the 260s B.C. and extending till about 100 B.C. During this period Rome faced the greatest threat to its early existence, that posed by Hannibal, and its first enemies outside the Italian peninsula; in addition to fighting Hannibal and the Carthaginians in their homeland Rome had to contend with the Macedonian king Philip V, who proved a threat to Rome while it was fighting Hannibal, the great Lusitanian leader Viriathus, and the Numidian king Jugurtha, a leader who was not only a great general but cunningly exploited the growing arrogance and corruption within Roman society.

In part two Matyszak examined what he called the "slow death of the Roman Republic," a period marked by treason, plots, and civil war (the reader gets a good deal of Roman history in this book). In addition to the Social War, a civil war, Rome clashed with enemies abroad, notably the King of Pontus, Mithridates (Pontus being a region in eastern Asian Minor), a situation made worse by the protracted civil war (Mithridates prevailed in some battles because Roman forces began to fight one another) and due to epic mismanagement and corruption on the part of the Romans (a chronic problem in Roman history). During this time Rome faced the revolt lead by Spartacus, which was well covered, the fight against the Parthian king Orodes II (Parthia being an empire in the lands of Persia and modern Iraq), and the struggle that involved the Ptolemaic queen Cleopatra. Also in this time was Caesar's war against the Gauls, lead by Vercingetorix, which the author particularly condemned as having been fought only for internal Roman political reasons and resulted in the death and dispossession of millions of people, one of the "greatest catastrophes of the ancient world," a "holocaust" unmatched until the later Spanish conquistadors actions in the Americas in the 16th century.

Part three focused on the Pax Romana, Rome at its height from Augustus' triumph at Actium in 31 BC through the reign of Emperor Trajan (ending in 117 AD). Rome reached its greatest physical extent at this time, coming into conflict with the Germans under Arminius (a rare retreat for Rome), the revolt by the queen of the Iceni in Britain, Boudicca, the rebellion of the Jews, and the war against the Dacians, lead by king Decebalus (Dacia roughly corresponds to modern Romania and part of Hungary).

The final chapter dealt with the end of the Empire, beginning with the ascension of the "thoroughly bad emperor" Commodus in AD 180, a time during which Rome came to blows with the great Persian king Shapur I, the queen of Palmyra, Zenobia (Palmyra was based in Syria and at one time included parts of Asia Minor and Egypt), the Gothic leader Alaric, and the infamous Attila the Hun.

High points for me about the book were the many excellent contemporary illustrations of Rome's enemies, many of which were surviving examples of artwork from that culture; two sets of plates showed statues, busts, coins, paintings, and reliefs depicting the leaders and soldiers of other cultures as well as some famous Romans that were prominent in the book, such as Sulla, Julius Caesar, and Titus. Within each chapter were black and white illustrations, generally depicting a typical warrior from the culture being discussed in that chapter. There were many excellent, gripping, and adventurous battle accounts as well as some nice descriptions of Roman and other culture's weapons, armor, mounts, and fighting tactics. There were also helpful maps in each chapter as well.

The only complaints I have about the book are that there was no real exploration of how each culture might have survived and what sort of civilization might have developed, particularly in the case of new ones like the urbanizing Celts of Gaul, had they lived on past the end of the Roman Empire. Also the author did not really explore Byzantine civilization to any great extent. I found his book useful and very interesting and liked his general premise; I just wish he had emphasized the cultural and developmental possibilities of the civilizations Rome destroyed or absorbed, perhaps at the expense of some of the detailed and otherwise excellent battle descriptions.

[Steve Downes · Rating 4 out of 5]

a very good introduction to the subject, with some excellent use of source material, useful for any classics student

[Chejo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Para libros de historia, tanto bélica como de la vida cotidiana en la antigüedad, Philip Matyszak es uno de los primeros autores que vienen a mi mente. En esta reseña intenté mantenerme imparcial, pero más allá de cualquier crítica, creo firmemente que Los enemigos de Roma merece ser leído.

★/★ — Claridad y enfoque del tema:
Los ensayos de Matyszak suelen destacar por su claridad expositiva y ritmo atractivo, y este libro no es la excepción. Los enemigos de Roma nos presenta el conflicto desde una perspectiva inusual: la de quienes se opusieron al poder romano. Aunque no es el único autor que ha abordado este enfoque, sigue siendo una propuesta poco frecuente. El autor trata de cubrir la historia de los enemigos de una forma completa , pero en lo personal lo definiría como una introducción bastante profunda y organizada, pero que no llega a del el libro definitivo del tema. Sin embargo, esto no le resta valor; al contrario, puede servir como puerta de entrada para explorar más a fondo a cada uno de estos protagonistas. Personalmente, creo que varios de ellos merecerían libros individuales.

★/★ — Calidad de la narrativa:
A pesar de haber leído la versión traducida al español, la narrativa conserva toda su fuerza. Un buen texto se reconoce también por la calidad que mantiene a través de sus traducciones, y en este caso, la fluidez y el orden cronológico están bien logrados. Matyszak consigue que la información histórica —incluso aquella más técnica o cargada de datos— se lea con interés y agilidad.

☆/★ — Diseño de la portada:
Lamentablemente, la edición que leí no destaca visualmente. La imagen de gladiadores luchando no logra representar la complejidad, ni el carácter de dignidad y desafío que define a los verdaderos protagonistas del libro. Aunque el título es llamativo, considero que la portada podría haberse trabajado con un enfoque más conceptual o simbólico, acorde al enfoque único del contenido.

★/★ — Calidad del material y presentación:
Aunque cuento con la edición digital, basándome en otros títulos físicos del mismo autor, puedo afirmar que suele haber un estándar de calidad editorial en sus publicaciones. En esta obra en particular, destaco la inclusión de ilustraciones y mapas que permiten ubicar geográficamente a los personajes y eventos, facilitando la comprensión del contexto, especialmente para quienes no están tan familiarizados con el mundo antiguo.

★/★ — Conexión personal y emocional:
Si bien el libro no pretende establecer una conexión emocional profunda como una novela, como aficionado a la historia no puedo evitar sentir cierta empatía —y en algunos casos, admiración— por los personajes retratados. Aunque me considero simpatizante de Roma y su legado, resulta imposible no reconocer el valor de quienes se atrevieron a enfrentarla, desde dentro o desde fuera, ya sea con éxito o en el fracaso.

[Dalton Rimbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short chapter overview of some of Rome's greatest enemies, good stuff. Not as in depth as i was looking for with certain leaders, but covering from Hanniable to Attila you can't get it all. Otherwise, good book.

[Tzu · Rating 2 out of 5]

Topics were interesting enough for me to buy the book, though the discussion of each topic was so superficial I skipped quite a few chapters and read only those chapters whose people spoke to me.

[M M · Rating 3 out of 5]

The fantastic quality of the Romans was their implacable refusal to accept defeat. Time after time, they proved their resilience by raising army after army, and eventually grinding their enemies into the dust. As described in this book, the Romans recovered from disastrous setbacks and lived to tell the tale of their eventual glorious successes. The likes of Jugurtha, Mithridates, and Boudicca may have tasted initial victories, but were in the end crushed and wiped out by the ruthless Imperium.

The usual image of Rome is one of civilisation holding back the rampaging barbarians. Naturally, it suited the victorious Romans to portray themselves thus. Matyszak's interesting book tries to show the times and the wars from the perspective of the other side, and in this he succeeds to a large extent. The Celts, he demonstrates, were not long-haired savages. Among other things, their metal working was superior to that of the Romans; In some ways, their social setup was more egalitarian than the patriarchal Roman 'democracy'. The Persians were not an effete race ruled by poncy kings (see the movie 300 to see what I mean). The Seleucid kings of Asia Minor ruled over sophisticated cultures, with manifold achievements in the arts and literature. In many cases, revolts and wars against the Imperium were caused by the venality and inhumanity of the Roman governors and military in the occupied territories. The enemies of Rome were not always honourable. But neither are they the villains that history has portrayed them to be.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

Classical history isn't always a page-turner but the quick and engaging chapters here make you want to say "Just one more enemy..." This book will also be a good corrective for anyone who admires Roman society, as one confrontation after another is shown to have its roots in Roman cupidity and militarism rather than any glorious rationale. It will also really make you want someone to make biopics about Mithridates and Zenobia.

The downside for me is that the book's focus is more on the careers of individual leaders and the tactics of particular battles, than on the societies those leaders came from. Particularly in the case of societies that indicate possible alternative world orders, such as Carthage or Sassanid Persia, this is a shame. Some key conflicts are also not explored; one wonders if the Social War, for example, was omitted just because a figurehead enemy leader was missing.

[Dermot O'Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philip Matyszak provides an engaging series of the Roman Empire's main adversaries over its lifetime with the likes of Spartacus, Attila the Hun, and Cleopatra profiled. The content spans a few centuries and locations from Britain to Persia so the narrative never slows or dulls. The book effectively is a summary of Roman military history over 300 pages. As a first-time reader of antiquity, I found it an enjoyable account and I recommend it to others as an introductory read. It comes replete with maps, drawings, and photos.

[Doug DePalma · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's a fine bed-side read, but there are grammatical errors in the text and its fairly narrative instead of analytic. The thesis is hard to come by and is loosely thrown in. Recommended for someone looking for an easy and fun read on Roman History. Nor Recommended for any serious historian of the Roman period.

[Adam Windsor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Readable if somewhat lightweight overview of the struggles between Rome and 17 of its most challenging foes. The page count does not allow anything too in depth, given the number of topics to cover. Definitely served to whet my interest in the nations of Carthage, Dacia, Palmyra and Pontus though.

[Ana Flores · Rating 3 out of 5]

La invasión romana de la Galia provocó una de las mayores catástrofes del mundo antiguo; un holocausto sin igual hasta que los conquistadores españoles llegaron a América en el siglo XVI. El arquitecto de la catástrofe gala es también nuestra principal fuente para esta historia: Gayo Julio César, el hombre que posteriormente derribaría la débil democracia romana y la sustituiría por una dictadura militar.

El tema no es para nada nuevo ni el libro aporta novedosas informaciones o teorías que no puedan verse ya en otros libros de divulgación histórica. Sin embargo, es su punto de vista lo que resulta peculiar. Su frase inicial: «Hasta hace muy poco tiempo, se asumía automáticamente que la civilización romana fue buena», nos da ya los términos en que se desarrollará el resto de la obra.

Se trata, en la corta medida en que eso es posible, de una visión de los vencidos, de una revaloración de los pueblos conquistados a través (como toda la historiografía clásica) de sus grandes caudillos.

Así, Roma se nos presenta no tanto como la gran civilización que esparció su rica cultura en todo el ámbito mediterráneo que poco a poco fue conquistando, sino como un régimen tiránico y genocida, que acabó sin compasión con una docena de ricas civilizaciones que se negaron de buena gana a someterse ante su empuje.

Y en eso, el autor, lleva mucha razón.

Y es que, independientemente de la prosperidad, sincretismo o enriquecimiento posteriores que en efecto se dieron en mayor o menor medida en esos pueblos (un enriquecimiento que se dio en ambos sentidos), es bastante dudoso que tal cosa pudiera constituir un consuelo para los millones de personas que, en el proceso, fueron perseguidas, explotadas, esclavizadas o asesinadas, en nombre de la «civilización».

Tal como les sucediera a los pueblos mesoamericanos antepasados nuestros con la llegada de los españoles, todas esas culturas debieron retroceder y morir para que la romana viviera, llegando la destrucción en ciertos casos (como con Cartago) a tal nivel de encarnizamiento, que apenas y podemos hoy darnos una idea de cómo sería aquella civilización, antes y durante la arremetida romana.

Casi todo lo que hoy se conserva son los testimonios (inevitablemente tendenciosos) de los vencedores, y eso mismo constituye un reclamo hacia la conquista romana, que, tal cual se les reclama a los europeos invasores del siglo XVI, les negó a millones de personas su pasado y herencia cultural, aquello que constituyó sus raíces más profundas y que acaso, si no en el estricto aspecto militar, era algo mucho más complejo, rico y avanzado que la civilización latina. Amén del enorme sufrimiento humano que todo ello acarreó.

Quizás, como llega a sugerir el autor, de no haber Roma acabado con el complejo cultural de todos esos pueblos, nunca habría habido una Edad Oscura tras la «caída» de Roma, pues, desparecido el control romano, las civilizaciones locales habrían podido entonces «renacer» y tomar su propio camino... aunque eso es dudoso, y demasiado idealizado a mi parecer.

En casi todo el Mundo Antiguo, y no sólo en el ámbito mediterráneo, las guerras eran endémicas y las invasiones y conquistas la norma; además, aparte las evidentes y eternas motivaciones egoístas inspiradas en el poder, la avaricia o mera vanidad (y que son casi lo único en lo que se fijan los historiadores clásicos), se libraba una auténtica lucha por la sobrevivencia; la vida era muy dura y los recursos muy pocos, por lo que los pueblos no podían esperar más piedad los unos de los otros que la inmisericordia de la misma naturaleza. O en otras palabras, de no haber sido Roma, algún otro u otros pueblos habrían atacado y conquistado el mundo mediterráneo antiguo, con mayor o menor éxito, con mayor o menor barbarie, que ésta.

Lo que, claro, no por eso disculpa las salvajadas que en su momento cometió el Imperio ni mucho menos.

El libro de Matyszak, que tiene el mérito de su perspectiva, adolece sin embargo (al igual que otros muchos libros de divulgación histórica) de clasicismo. Aunque es siempre crítico, escéptico (y hasta hostil) con las fuentes romanas, y acude continuamente a referencias arqueológicas y otro material moderno, es incapaz de alejarse de los juicios generales de valor o moralizantes con que los historiadores clásicos pretendían dar motor y hasta sentido a la historia. Habla de la «decadencia» o «caída» de Roma sin al parecer darse siquiera cuenta de lo anacrónico y caduco de semejantes concepciones, así como de la codicia, la inmoralidad o corrupción de sus líderes como conductores de la historia, ignorando (como los referidos autores clásicos) que hay otros muchos factores aparte de las grandes personalidades que determinaron el acontecer histórico (como la cultura, la sociología, la geografía o la economía), y que no podemos ya seguir hablando en términos de buenos y malos.

Sea como sea, es un buen y entretenido repaso sobre la agitada existencia de Roma, que aunque aquí es el enemigo, es imposible no sentirse atraído hacia ella.

[Bogdan · Rating 3 out of 5]

În continua sa expansiune de aproape 1000 de ani, Roma, precum și soldații ei au avut o întreagă serie de dușmani: de la barbari "simpli" care se vopseau în albastru și mergeau în bătălie cu capetele retezate ale vrăjmașilor atârnate la brâu, până la civilizații vechi de milenii, pentru care romanii erau doar un alt popor mic și agitat în mai larga schemă a istoriei lor.
Fost jurnalist, actual profesor de istorie cu normă parțială, autorul britanic este pasionat de istoria antică a Romei, subiect pe marginea căruia a scris numeroase manuscrise. În această operă, ne prezintă în 17 capitole succinte, tot atâția antagoniști ai Romei care, la un moment sau altul au reușit să creeze oarecare palpitații pt faimosul SPQR, fapt dovedit de universalitatea lor: ne sunt prezentate figuri precum Hannibal, Spartacus, Arminius, Attila, Vercingetorix, dar și Cleopatra. Bineînțeles, că pe lângă aceștia, foarte cunoscuți amatorilor de istorie, autorul tratează și războaiele conduse împotriva unor figuri istorice mai obscurse (a se citi "despre care nu s-au făcut încă filme la Hollywood") precum Decebal, Zenobia, Orodes, Iugurta sau Josephus. Analiza istorică nu este profundă până în ființa materiei, dar oferă mai multă substanță decât diferitele documentare de specialitate, beneficiind de interesul autentic al profesorului pentru narațiunile de gen, și de research-ul acestuia: sincer și plin de pasiune. Deci, deloc exhaustivă, cartea este o bună recapitulare a Istoriei Romane dacă se dorește accentul pus pe partea belicoasă.

[Krisley Freitas · Rating 3 out of 5]

O livro é dividido em quatro partes, contando em ordem cronológica os principais “Inimigos de Roma”: Parte 1 - Aníbal, Filipe V, Viriato, Jugurta; 2 – Mitríades, Espártaco, Vercingetorix, Orodes II, Cleópatra; 3 – Armínio, Boudica, Josefo, Decébalo; 4 – Shapur I, Zenóbia, Alarico, Átila. Cada parte contém uma introdução com um resumo do período que será abordado.

Há diversos mapas e ilustrações ao longo do texto, além de duas seções com fotos em papel fotográfico.

Algumas histórias são um pouco rasas, ainda mais se tratando de um livro direcionado a leitores que não dominam o assunto. O acréscimo de uma ou duas páginas por história, detalhando melhor algumas apresentações e aprofundando a situação política, elevariam consideravelmente a qualidade da leitura.

Há alguns erros de revisão de texto e imprecisões históricas - talvez erro de tradução. Por exemplo, na página 140 fala do assassinato de Domiciano em “96 a.C” , quando na verdade ele foi assassinado em 96 d.C. A mesma confusão acontece ao falar de Decébalo “nos anos 80 a.C”.

É uma boa leitura, recomendada para quem quer começar a ler sobre o assunto.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

The premise for this book is that Rome's expansion was at the expense of the other cultures around it (which is probably true) and that these other cultures had much to offer the world prior to their defeat at the hands of Rome (this is also probably true). As the author puts it "In this book we see many of the alternative European and Mediterranean cultures in their last years before they were overwhelmed." However, I find that this book focused more on the individual leaders of the Enemies of Rome and less on the cultures and 'what-might-have-been' had they not been defeated. That being said, the more personal look at the leaders of these other cultures is definitely worth the read.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

An enjoyable, easy read, although anyone familiar with Roman history won't find anything new or remarkable within these pages. As an overview, I appreciated the more unique look at Republic & Empire from the point of view of its conflicts with what could be termed "arch"-enemies. However, the book does open with a thesis which implies that, had these enemies survived & prospered without the presence of Rome, western civilization would have avoided the Dark Ages. The rest of the book doesn't exactly go out of its way to support or analyse this perspective...leaving one to wonder why bring it up in the first place.

[Wilfredo R. Dotti · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that despite being short, manages to describe in cronological order and with detail the warlords and most notable kings who dared to challenge the Roman Empire throughout its existence, as well as the circumstances that led them todo it. Another aspect that I liked very much about this book is the fact that it contains maps and illustrations that allow one to get an idea of how the military actions were developed and the approximate aspect of the different military units, both Barbarian and Roman.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is nothing particularly groundbreaking or riveting about this book. It does, however, tell you all you need to know about some of the most important moments in Rome's history as told through its enemies. Matyszak is a pretty good storyteller with a decent sense of wry humor, even if his prose is a bit dry. If you are already expert in Roman history there is likely not anything here you don't already know, but for those building a bookshelf on Roman history it's a good addition. That's all I really have to say.

[Adam Chandler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Matyszak does a good job with Roman history in general. This particular volume deals with the specific subject of Rome's greatest enemies from the height of the Roman Republic (with Hannibal Barca) to the late Empire (with Attila the Hun). Each opponent of Rome is given a chapter with the big names covered. This is an accessible introduction to the warfare in Roman history by following personages more so than simply dates and numbers.

[Simone Mauro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Come da titolo, si tratta di una veloce lettura sui principali nemici di Roma: dai fasti delle guerre puniche fino al tracollo definitivo.
Il testo si compone di 17 capitoli, ciascuno dedicato ad un singolo personaggio. Le guerre coprono un periodo di quasi 700 anni: dal III secolo a.C. fino al V d.C.
Oltre al "nemico di Roma", ogni capitolo offre anche una breve panoramica del periodo storico, permettendo di conoscere a grandi linee le tappe cruciali della storia romana.

[Lee Lek · Rating 4 out of 5]

A light read that gives a general broad overview of Rome's history of war with neighboring enemies, which may not be enough for history fans but an entertaining read for casual history readers. I also like how the author would occasionally give his perspective of certain historical events from a modern day point of view, and the significance of historical events towards our modern world.

[Thiago d'Evecque · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cada capítulo caracteriza um líder das diferentes culturas que guerrearam contra Roma. É uma ótima leitura sobre quem eram esses inimigos, tanto no âmbito militar como no pessoal.

[Mtod12 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This gives a different perspective of various figures who fought Rome instead of from the Roman perspective.

[Martin Blake · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a historical text book, but well worth reading if you like Rome and history and stuff.

[Evillcat · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Wai Zin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A light and entertaining book.
But you won't find deep reading.
Still quite enjoyable.