N.'s examination of the development of Roman siege warfare aims to fill the gap which she sees as existing between the high level of scholarship conducted with regard to the development of siege warfare in Classical Greece and the much lower amount of scholarly literature devoted to the development of siege warfare during the early Roman Republic, at least in French (p. 5). N. also aims to show that siege warfare played a key part in Roman territorial expansion in the period down to the second century b.c. Highlighting problems with the literary evidence, and in particular its sparsity until the time of the Punic Wars, she combines what we have from the historians with archaeological evidence to present a broad overview of siege warfare in this period, along with closer examinations of siege tactics and strategy as it developed over time.

The book is split chronologically into five chapters, covering 509/8–390, 389–293, 264–241, 219–202 and 215–168 b.c. Each of these periods, N. argues, represents a distinct stage in the development of siege warfare for the Romans. In the first two chapters, she paints a picture of the background to siege warfare before the Romans began to use mechanical artillery. The third chapter discusses the use of mechanical artillery, i.e. catapults, by the Romans. The fourth chapter considers the Second Punic War, while the fifth chapter focuses on the Macedonian Wars and the war against Antiochus. Each chapter is further subdivided to guide the reader through the book, with sub-chapters focusing on different aspects of siege warfare. This chronological approach helps N. to focus her argument that the Romans' level of skill in sieges developed over time. However, the gaps left between each section give the book a slightly piecemeal impression, although her choice of periods for examination is justified by the concentration of sieges which occurred in each of her time frames.

N. argues that the Roman army used siege warfare as a means of strengthening its military reputation in the Mediterranean world, and her book mirrors this to some degree through her aim of rehabilitating the reputation of early Roman siege craft. She acknowledges the Greek heritage of Roman siege warfare, but also notes that the Romans adapted tactics of assault and blockade to their own style of fighting. Blockade, N. notes, was a limited tactic for the Romans because of the problems of supplying their forces, preventing their troops from growing bored through lack of occupation and maintaining a campaign through the winter, though this, along with treachery, was the most common method by which the Romans captured cities in the earliest period under consideration. Despite a much later adoption of siege technology (in particular artillery) than the Greeks and Carthaginians, and despite early setbacks against enemies already conversant with siege machinery, N. argues that following a treaty with Hiero II of Syracuse, the Romans eventually adopted siege techniques and machinery and made them an incredibly successful part of their military strategy.

Throughout, N. engages with the problematic nature of the written evidence for siege warfare in this period. The opening of each chapter considers the literary sources for the period under consideration, highlighting where and why problems arise with the texts and noting those ancient sources which are particularly useful for N.'s aims. The texts are then considered alongside archaeological evidence and more recent scholarship. Disappointingly, while N. occasionally quotes ancient sources in translation and individual words or short phrases in Latin or Greek, at no point does she quote extensively in the original language.

Another area in which more detail would have been useful comes in Chapter 3, where N. describes the introduction of catapults to the Roman military. She provides us with a basic overview of how torsion catapults work (p. 73), which is certainly of help to any reader unfamiliar with the technology. However, her claims that ‘La catapulte n'avait sûrement pas changé dans son principe, mais elle avait peut-être un peu évolué depuis son invention’ are made without reference to scholarly debate in this area (e.g. E.W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development [1969], pp. 16–85, and T. Rihll, The Catapult: a History [2007], pp. 77–90) and ignores the argument that non-torsion catapult technology may still have been used in this period (Rihll, op. cit. pp. 164–7).

On the whole, the book is very user-friendly. At the end of each of the main chapters, N. provides a table or tables outlining the points made within the chapter and the sieges which occurred in the period discussed. On a number of occasions whole columns are left unfilled, which leads the reader to question why they have been included in the first place (e.g. pp. 183–4, Tableau 5). Helpfully, however, all of the sieges discussed are listed in their own index at the end of the work along with their dates and the ancient sources in which they can be found. These are further subdivided to help the reader find the particular siege for which they are looking more easily.

The book also contains a large number of illustrations, including strategic maps, images of siege machinery and photographs of archaeological remains or reconstructions. All the illustrations are in black and white. They do have two downsides, however. There is no list of illustrations (nor is there a list of tables given), which means that the reader has to flick through the book to find them. In addition, since most of the illustrations are taken from other sources and reprinted, the quality is significantly reduced, especially with regard to the reproductions of maps (particularly p. 121, fig. 25, where the contour lines of the map are so faint as to be invisible in places, and p. 125, fig. 28, where again some of the lines on a plan are incredibly faint).

This book is a very readable monograph, which contains a range of approaches to the study of early Roman siege warfare. The combination of textual and archaeological approaches and the reasonably heavy degree of scepticism with which N. treats the ancient sources serve to make this work a thoroughly researched study of the subject. Though there are parts of it which could have been fleshed out and given more detail, this is a work of such broad scope that it does not unduly suffer as a result.