skip to content
BooksReddit

Book · 2010

Carthage Must Be Destroyed

by Richard Miles

A historian reconstructs Carthage from the wreckage Rome left behind, tracing a civilization known almost entirely through its enemies' accounts.

10
Total mentions
8
Unique users
+0.36
Avg sentiment
−1 pan ↔ +1 praise
2
Subreddits
where it's mentioned

What does Reddit think of Carthage Must Be Destroyed?

Richard Miles' *Carthage Must Be Destroyed* accumulates 10 mentions across r/history (7) and r/AskHistorians (3) — a modest but steady footprint for ancient history nonfiction. The sentiment data is neutral across both subs, which tracks: nobody is arguing against the book, but nobody is calling it the definitive word either. The consistent framing is corrective. In r/history, the ↑230 comment pitching it does so explicitly as a non-Roman perspective on the Punic Wars. The ↑39 thread makes the sourcing problem plain: mountains of material on Rome, almost nothing on Carthage specifically. Miles fills that gap and is credited for it. In r/AskHistorians, recommendations pair it with Adrian Goldsworthy's *The Fall of Carthage* — Miles for the civilizational sweep, Goldsworthy for the military close-up. The book's core constraint is structural: Carthage left almost no records, so every chapter is reconstruction through Greek and Roman sources. Readers who know this going in report satisfaction; those expecting primary-source density may not.

Community feedback & reader fit

Themes

  • · Non-Roman perspective on the Punic Wars
  • · Reconstruction of Carthaginian civilization from hostile sources
  • · Phoenician origins and the Mediterranean world
  • · The politics of historical erasure
  • · War elephants and Punic military history

Common praise

  • + Fills the near-total gap in English-language books that treat Carthage as the subject rather than Rome's antagonist.
  • + The ↑230 r/history comment singles it out as 'very well written' for readers with any curiosity beyond Hellenistic surface history.
  • + Pairs cleanly with Goldsworthy's *The Fall of Carthage* — Miles handles the civilizational arc, Goldsworthy the battlefield detail.
  • + Accessible enough for general readers who know the Punic Wars only from Roman-centric accounts.

Common criticism

  • − The evidentiary floor is low throughout — Carthage left almost no written record, so Miles is working almost entirely from Greek and Roman sources.
  • − Neutral sentiment across all 10 mentions suggests the book provokes little argument, which can mean it plays it safe rather than stakes a position.
  • − The r/AskHistorians crowd uses it as a secondary citation rather than a primary authority, which tells you something about its standing among specialists.

Who it's for

You've read the Roman side of the Punic Wars and feel the asymmetry. This is the corrective. Readers already familiar with Livy or Polybius will get the most from Miles — the book assumes some period context and rewards it. If you came to ancient history through military history, pair it with Goldsworthy and read Miles first for the civilization, Goldsworthy for the campaigns. Specialists wanting primary source density should look elsewhere; the source problem is structural, not a failure of the author.

Mentions over time

Q2 2019 peak: 4/qtr Q4 2023

Top subreddits

Which Reddit comments matter for Carthage Must Be Destroyed?

Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.

Sidenote, but if anyone is looking for a book on Carthaginian history and a non-Roman perspective of the Punic wars, check out Richard Miles' *Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization*. The book is very well written and takes the reader through the origins of Cartha…

r/history ↑ 230 positive

Your evaluation of the relative pros and cons of war elephant usage is pretty spot on. I would recommend reading either *Carthage Must Be Destroyed” by Richard Miles or *The Fall of Carthage* by Adrian Goldsworthy if you want to see some of where I’m pulling this analysis from, in addition to plenty…

r/AskHistorians ↑ 177 positive

Starting at the beginning, as it were, I recommend 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed, which is about the Bronze Age Collapse, the sort of false-start of civilization in the Levant and the Mediterranean, it lays …

r/history ↑ 46 positive

Just thought of sharing my highly recommended reading list! Afghanistan: [Afghanistan: A History From 1260 to the Present]( A History from 1260 to the Present ) by Jonatahn A. Lee. The books prov…

r/history ↑ 44 mixed

If you are interested in another perspective, Carthage Must Be Destroyed is a good intermediate book about Carthage specifically. There are mountains written about Rome and the Punic Wars, but not a lot about Carthage sp…

r/history ↑ 39 positive

The obliteration of Carthage by the Roman Republic at the conclusion of the Third Punic War in 146BC has done little to aid our ability to reconstruct anything about its cultural life, in the sense that we are always viewing them through the lens of the Greeks and Romans. As far as we can tell, the …

r/AskHistorians ↑ 28 mixed

I think you're making a joke, but there's actually a really interesting book with that title that goes over Carthage's history and Phoenician origins. ​ If anyone has even a passing curiosity about Carthage beyond the surface level you learn reading about Hellenistic history, that book is p…

r/history ↑ 25 positive

The Romans definitely saw them as barbarians. Our modern stereotype of barbarians as violent fur-clad warriors is indeed derived from the particular stereotype the Romans had about Celts, Germans and Dacians. But the concept barbarian was also applied to non-Roman peoples. These weren't just foreign…

r/AskHistorians ↑ 21 mixed

Readers also mention

Books that share discussion threads with Carthage Must Be Destroyed — counted from the comments, not curated.

Carthage Must Be Destroyed — frequently asked

What does Reddit actually think of Carthage Must Be Destroyed?+

Broadly positive but quiet. Across 10 mentions in r/history and r/AskHistorians, no one argues against it — the ↑230 r/history comment recommends it explicitly as a non-Roman perspective on the Punic Wars. The neutral aggregate sentiment reflects approval without argument rather than indifference. It gets cited, not debated.

Is Carthage Must Be Destroyed the best book on Carthage?+

Depends what you need. r/AskHistorians pairs it with Adrian Goldsworthy's *The Fall of Carthage* rather than treating either as definitive — Miles for the civilizational and cultural sweep, Goldsworthy for the military detail. If you want both angles, you likely need both books. For pure accessibility, Miles wins.

Does Carthage Must Be Destroyed handle the source problem honestly?+

Yes, and it has to. The ↑28 r/AskHistorians comment on Carthage's obliteration states the core issue plainly: the Romans destroyed the archive, so everything comes through Greek and Roman lenses. Miles acknowledges this throughout. The r/history crowd credits him for working within the constraint rather than papering over it.

Should I read Carthage Must Be Destroyed if I already know the Punic Wars from Roman sources?+

That's exactly the reader who benefits most. The ↑39 r/history thread frames it precisely this way — there are mountains written about Rome, almost nothing about Carthage specifically. Miles is pitched as the corrective for readers who sense that imbalance. The ↑230 recommendation makes the same case.