Back to ObsoletPacifista's Profile ObsoletPacifista's Profile

In only 81 chapters of around 30 pages each, Ad Astra: Scipio to Hannibal tells from beginning to end one of the most important wars in History.
Of course, to do so it uses an unusual amount of text, but it’s justified by how detailed the exploration of the mechanics at play is, kind of like Hunter X Hunter but much better integrated within the pacing.
The war is shown as a competition between geniuses who do all they can to save their respective nations. Honor, individual bravery, strength difference, number difference, everything is subordinated to their survival. Thus the amount of detail put into strategies, not ... only detailing the distribution of men throughout the battlefield and the geographic and climatic conditions, but also emphasizing the psychology of both soldiers and generals.

The manga knows what kind of story it wants to be and fulfills its pretensions excellently, but it’s not history for history’s sake, for it promotes a pseudo-darwinist message by showing how Rome achieved her greatness by constant struggle against her enemies, being forced to strengthen herself for her survival, Per Aspera Ad Astra. Hannibal’s threat exposed Rome’s superior will to power, for Rome was able to take great risks to defeat her enemy, while the Carthaginian government wasn’t prepared to bet everything on Hannibal’s campaign.
The main character, Scipio, is an incarnation of the feminine nature of Rome, for he constantly learns of his enemies and implements their techniques in his own strategies, making the greatest master out of his enemies, and showcasing Carthage as one of Rome’s forgers.
But there’s also a message on the cycle of hate necessarily born from war: Hate keeps being perpetuated through generations until one of the nations finally gets destroyed. But, as Scipio shows, the victor’s forgiveness and Continence can stop the cycle and allow both nations to better their relationship.

Among all this, there’s also space for more personal conflicts, like the patrician-plebeian conflict that defines different ways of thinking between the Roman characters, not victimizing nor satanizing any group. The conflict is used for a touching story about friendship overcoming envy and disappointment born from class distinction so that Roman brothers fight together for their single Roman cause.

But the biggest "limitation", so to speak, is precisely that it knows very well that it wants to be a story about war, and it stays as such most of the time. The story is so focused on the battles that we don't see much of the characters' private lives, we don't see their families (like Scipio's brother and mother), we don't see much of Roman culture, we don't see how the war of attrition affects the day to day life of Roman citizens (And I especially dislike the way Cato is wasted given his relationship with both Scipio and Carthage). What does losing the war mean to the Romans besides "X amount of people will die or get enslaved"? What does Freedom mean to them? What do they think of the human sacrifices in Carthage? How does Roman occupation affect the Gauls who allied with Hannibal? What makes patricians and plebeians different?
If this kind of questions were explored the story could be much richer, and events like Scipio becoming a "monster" at the eyes of some and his personality clashing with that of conservative Roman politicians would carry much more weight.

Don't get me wrong, the characters are good. They all have defined personalities and consistent motivations, and each offers his own perspective on the war, thus adding something to the themes on how nations relate to each other and individuals relate to their nations. Fabius Maximus as a stoic leader, Gaius Laelius as a common soldier, Claudius Marcellus as a veteran general, they're all interesting personalities and, if explored more deeply along with the world, could have made Ad Astra a masterpiece.

But in the center of everything there's Scipio.
As the author wanted to tell the whole war but didn't want the main character to be on the sidelines half of the story, Scipio is given credit for various important battles, which justifies his rapid rise to power. And his intelligence is also balanced by his problems with authority, showing him lacking at treating his superiors properly (Which would have more weight if we didn't skip the whipping as a joke) and sometimes being incapable of helping in battle (More because of the strict military hierarchy than because of his own faults).
He's a very good example of a genius who doesn't win by guessing impossible things, but by thinking outside of the box and taking advantage of every resource at hand. He allows revenge and forgiveness, he becomes a monster and a saviour, always with an utilitarian mindset, some would say machiavellian.
Because he's consistently smart and mentally stable, developments like his growing enjoyment of war and the loss of his father aren't done much with, and he's more interesting because of the effect he has on those around him than because of whatever happens inside of his head.

Hannibal is another interesting case. The first chapter sets him up as a semi-divine being sent by the heavens to destroy Rome, but he is gradually humanized as he meets his limitations. His growing appreciation for his subordinates and his dependence on a state to support him convey a collectivist message about how no matter how many great individuals capable of giving their name to an era are born, it is the collectivity of the people who defines the development of a nation.
Besides his obvious tragic ending he has some off-screen development which, again, has very beautiful implications but because it wasn't explored and we know barely anything about Carthaginian culture and what motivates Hannibal to change his perspective, it's a pretty shallow conclusion.

The story isn't so well rounded either. Events like Scipio's illness, Gisco's capture and the whole Siege of Syracuse are included for being historically accurate, but don't add anything to the story in the long term.

And yet, Ad Astra could very well be the most engaging historical work I’ve read. There are no excessive conveniences, no epiphanies that totally change the behaviour of a character nor abrupt changes in tone, it takes advantage of each chapter's length, there is no magic nor any radical changes in the main conflicts, it doesn't mock any side and it doesn't lecture you on morality, the story is full of tension since the beginning and even when the tides turn in favor of the Romans, the characters need to go to new lands and fight new armies which are threatening in their own way.

+Extra points because the more I learn about the Second Punic War the more impressed I am by the manga's fidelity to real History and the more I want such a detailed adaptation of subsequent events.

8/10