History YMMV / AfricanusTrilogy

** While admittedly inevitable due to the LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters, a common note is that most of the CharacterDevelopment of the trilogy focuses solely on the Romans, if not in Scipio, Lelius and Plautus alone (as well as a bit of Emilia in the third book), while for the rest, even the most important characters remain relatively unexplored not matter how much pagetime they receive. Hannibal might be the best example, as although he is clearly meant to be a parallel VillainProtagonist, he has little actual personality outside his military exploits for the entire first two books, and unlike Scipio, his childhood, love life with Himilce and relationships are barely touched upon until the third, when they are not as important anymore.

* EnsembleDarkhorse: The segments with Plautus are ironically some of the most unanimously liked parts of the story, particularly in the first book, which narrates his convoluted journey from theater helper to soldier to successful writer. Some have pointed that, probably because MostWritersAreWriters, it is actually at those parts where Posteguillo seems to be the most comfortable to write.

** Nothing destroys the atmosphere of a tense, dramatic scene about the death of a character like the quote "he suddenly got up like a mare in heat".
** Cato's interest in agriculture becomes a bit of a plot point for his relationship with Gracchus, but it gets hysterical in its own because the narration actually tries to style the thing as another sign of Cato's villainy, such as making it look like he's doing some incredibly evil activity while writing about feeding oxen and cultivating leeks.

** Maharbal's death is a gigantic cliché, complete with its appropriate arrow overkill and trite last words, but Hannibal's reaction is so uncharacteristically heartbroken that it ''works'', making it an absolute TearJerker in a book already full of tragedies. Even the previous death scene of Hannibal's wife Himilce doesn't take a bit of it.
** Cato's famous quote "furthermore I consider Carthage must be destroyed!" is completely out of place in the third book's timeline, but let's be frank, it would have been almost disappointing to finish the novel without having heard it.

** While admittedly inevitable due to the LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters, a common note is that most of the CharacterDevelopment of the trilogy focuses solely on the Romans, if not in Scipio, Lelius and Plautus alone (as well as Emilia in the third book), while for the rest, even the most important characters remain relatively unexplored not matter how much pagetime they receive. Hannibal might be the best example, as although he is clearly meant to be a parallel VillainProtagonist, he has little actual personality outside his military exploits, and unlike Scipio, his childhood, love life with Himilce and relationships are barely touched upon.
** Hasdrubal Barca is another example, as he could have been used as a {{Foil}} to Hannibal like Lucius to Publius, or even Gnaeus to Publius Sr, but instead he is left as a MinorMajorCharacter to the very end. His supposed relationship of RedOniBlueOni with Hannibal, alluded in-story, never goes really beyond an InformedAttribute due to how little focus he receives before his unceremonious death. (Ironically, the moment that would have gave him the biggest amount of personality, the Battle of Metaurus, is one of the few battles of the Second Punic War in the trilogy that is ''not'' shown on page.)

** Although everybody agrees the trilogy is a ''massive'' work of historiography, not everybody is so unanimous about its narrative quality. Some opine the historical value is enough to compensate for Posteguillo's weak writing or just more important in the first place, while others believe it doesn't and point out that Posteguillo actually propagates a heavily slanted re-interpretation of the historical facts (especially regarding Scipio and Fabius, who are turned into a [[HistoricalHeroUpgrade goody two-shoes]] and an [[HistoricalVillainUpgrade irredeemable bastard]] respectively with little semblance of hue), and a third camp believes it be good enough to ignore its deviations.
** Fabius's portrayal is a huge point of contemption, as while some like him for being such a deliciously evil mastermind, it is difficult to ignore he is actually a very FlatCharacter (far from being the only in the story, but still a notable case) and a case of HistoricalVillainUpgrade so extreme that it sometimes affects the suspension of disbelief (practically ''all'' his scenes and appearances are a KickTheDog moment in a way or another). The historical Fabius was certainly a CombatPragmatist with some instances of ruthlessness, but this version of him is so densely evil that even his noblest, most altruistic actions in history are twisted into some dastardly machination.

* EvenBetterSequel: ''The Accursed Legions'', counting possibly as a SurprisinglyImprovedSequel for those who didn't find the first book superb. Even although some problems of the first book are still there, it is acknowledged the second takes a huge step forward in CharacterDevelopment (well, for Scipio and Lelius at least), improves its look on ancient politics (like the Numidian arc and Fabius's last throes in the Senate) and marks the interesting end of the Second Punic War (particularly Hannibal's return to Carthage and the battle of Zama). It comes to the point many call it the best chapter of the trilogy.
* {{Narm}}: Emilia becoming angry with grief when Publius reveals to her the death of her father in Cannae should be an emotional, relatable moment, but the subsequent scene of her beating him up with punches, especially given that he is visibly wounded from the battle, becomes a BlackComedyBurst in its own right.

** Although everybody agrees the trilogy is a ''massive'' work of historiography, not everybody is so unanimous about its narrative quality. Some opine the historical value is enough to compensate for Posteguillo's weak writing or just more important in the first place, while others believe it doesn't and point out that Posteguillo actually propagates a heavily slanted re-interpretation of the historical facts (especially regarding - but not limited to - Scipio and Fabius, who are turned into a [[HistoricalHeroUpgrade goody two-shoes]] and an [[HistoricalVillainUpgrade irredeemable bastard]] respectively with little semblance of hue).

* EvenBetterSequel: ''The Accursed Legions'', counting possibly as a SurprisinglyImprovedSequel for those who didn't find the first book superb. Even although some problems of the first book are still there, it is acknowledged the second takes a huge step forward in CharacterDevelopment (well, for Scipio and Lelius), improves its look on ancient politics (like the Numidian arc and Fabius's last throes in the Senate) and marks the interesting end of the Second Punic War (particularly Hannibal's return to Carthage and the battle of Zama). It comes to the point many call it the best chapter of the trilogy.
* {{Narm}}: Emilia becoming angry with grief when Publius reveals to her the death of her father in Cannae should be an emotional, relatable moment, but the subsequent scene of her beating him with punches, especially given that he is visibly wounded from the battle, becomes a BlackComedyBurst in its own right.

** Hasdrubal Gisgo lusting for ''his own daughter Sophonisba''. Really, what's up with Carthaginians and incest in this work?

** Hasdrubal Barca is another example, as he could have been used as a {{Foil}} to Hannibal like Lucius to Publius, or even Gnaeus to Publius Sr, but instead he is left as a MinorMajorCharacter to the very end. His supposed relationship of RedOniBlueOni with Hannibal, alluded in-story, never goes really beyond an InformedAttribute due to how little focus he receives before his unceremonious death. (Ironically, the moment that would have gave him the biggest amount of personality, the Battle of Metaurus, is one of the few battles of the Second Punic War in the trilogy that is not shown on page.)

** Although everybody agrees the trilogy is a ''massive'' work of historiography, not everybody is so unanimous about its narrative quality. Some opine the historical value is enough to compensate for Posteguillo's weak writing or just more important in the first place, while others believe it doesn't and point out that Posteguillo actually propagates a heavily slanted re-interpretation of the historical facts (especially regarding - but not limited to - Scipio and Fabius, who are turned into a goody two-shoes and an irredeemable bastard respectively with little semblance of hue).

* DesignatedHero: In the second book, the narration nonchalantly mentions that Scipio massacred the Iberian cities of Illiturgis and Castulo with special cruelty, and this is never explored or questioned in any way. Those facts become exceptionally questionable when, in the previous book, the story profiled Fabius as a villain for his decision to ravage the city of Tarentum, exactly the same act Scipio later commits twice.

* EvenBetterSequel: ''The Accursed Legions'', counting possibly as a SurprisinglyImprovedSequel for those who didn't find the first book superb. Even although some of the troubles of the first book are still there, it is acknowledged the second takes a huge step forward in CharacterDevelopment (at least for Scipio and Lelius), improves its look on ancient politics (like the Numidian arc and Fabius's last throes in the Senate) and marks the end of the Second Punic War (particularly Hannibal's return to Carthage and the battle of Zama). It comes to the point many call it the best chapter of the trilogy.

** While admittedly inevitable due to the LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters of the trilogy, a common note is that most of the CharacterDevelopment of the trilogy focuses solely in the good guys, if not in Scipio, Lelius and Plautus alone (as well as Emilia in the third book), while for the rest, even the most important characters remain relatively unexplored not matter how much pagetime they occupy. Hannibal might be the best example, as although he is clearly meant to be a parallel VillainProtagonist, he has little actual personality outside his military exploits, and unlike Scipio, his childhood, love life with Himilce and relationships are barely touched upon.
** Hasdrubal Barca is another example, as he could have been used as a {{Foil}} to Hannibal like Lucius to Publius, or even Gnaeus to Publius Sr, but instead he is left as a MinorMajorCharacter to the very end. His supposed relationship of RedOniBlueOni with Hannibal, alluded in-story, never goes really beyond an InformedAttribute due to how little focus he receives before his unceremonious death. (Ironically, the moment that would have gave him the biggest amount of characterization, the Battle of Metaurus, is one of the few battles of the Second Punic War in the trilogy that is not shown on page.)

* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot: Hasdrubal Barca's death. Although the books dedicates dozens of pages to every minor clash, the Battle of the Metaurus is strangely left entirely off-page, so the powerful moment that should have been the fall of Hasdrubal is entirely glossed over.

* BigLippedAlligatorMoment: The scene towards end of ''The Accursed Legions'' where Scipio's dead tribunes gather in the Roman underworld and meet Charon. The story turns suddenly from HistoricalFiction to HistoricalFantasy here, without any foreshadowing and or posterior trascendence, and never does it again.

** Fabius's portrayal is a huge point of contemption, as while some like him for being such a deliciously evil mastermind, it is difficult to ignore he is actually a very FlatCharacter (far from being the only in the story, but still a notable case) and a case of HistoricalVillainUpgrade so extreme that it sometimes affects the suspension of disbelief (practically ''all'' his scenes and appearances are a KickTheDog moment in a way or another). The historical Fabius was certainly a CombatPragmatist with some instances of ruthlessness, but this version of him is so densely evil that even his noblest, most altruistic actions in history are twisted into pieces of some dastardly machination.

* EnsembleDarkhorse: The segments with Plautus are ironically some of the most unanimously liked parts of the history, particularly in the first book, which narrates his convoluted journey from theater helper to soldier to successful writer. Some have pointed that, probably because MostWritersAreWriters, it is actually at those parts where Posteguillo seems to be the most comfortable to write.
* EvenBetterSequel: ''The Accursed Legions'', counting possibly as a SurprisinglyImprovedSequel for those who didn't find the first book superb. Even although some of the troubles of the first book are still there, it is acknowledged the second takes a huge step forward in CharacterDevelopment (at least for Scipio and Lelius), improves its look on ancient politics (like the Numidian arc and Fabius's last throes in the Senate) and marks the end for the Second Punic War (particularly Hannibal's return to Carthage and the battle of Zama). It comes to the point many call it the best chapter of the trilogy.
* {{Narm}}: Emilia becoming angry with grief when Publius reveals to her the death of her father in Cannae should be an emotional, relatable moment, but the subsequent scene of her literally beating him with punches, especially given that he is visibly wounded from the battle, becomes a BlackComedyBurst in its own right.

** While admittedly inevitable due to the LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters of the trilogy, a common note is that most of the CharacterDevelopment of the trilogy focuses solely in the good guys, if not in Scipio, Lelius and Plautus alone (as well as Emilia in the third book), while for the rest, even the most important characters remain relatively unexplored not matter how pagetime they occupy. Hannibal might be the best example, as although he is clearly meant to be a parallel VillainProtagonist, he has little actual personality outside his military exploits, and unlike Scipio, his childhood, love life with Himilce and relationships are barely touched.
** Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal is another example, as his character could have been played with in the same brotherly contrast as Publius and Lucius, or even Publius Sr. and Gnaeus, but he is left as merely a MinorMajorCharacter to the very end. His supposed relationship of RedOniBlueOni with Hannibal, alluded in-story, never goes really beyond an InformedAttribute due to how little focus he receives before his unceremonious, offscreen death. Ironically, the moment that would have gave him the biggest amount of characterization, the Battle of Metaurus, is one of the few battles of the Second Punic War in the trilogy that is not shown on page.
** Fabius and Cato follow close to Hannibal, as their characterizations are strictly limited to their villainy, often cartoonishly so. The latter does show an interesting edge when it is repeatedly suggested that he doesn't completely approve of Fabius's gratuitous wickedness, but this is not explored upon, and he ultimately never grows beyond his TallDarkAndSnarky outlook. Fabius is an even worse case given that every chance to give him depth, including his reaction to the death of his son, is carefully nullified and/or used to make him even more shallowy evil. They both might be among the few cases where a novelized version of a historical character is actually ''less'' layered and complex than what we know about the real one.

* BigLippedAlligatorMoment: The scene towards end of ''The Accursed Legions'' where Scipio's dead tribunes gather in the Roman underworld and meet Charon. The story turns suddenly from HistoricalFiction to HistoricFantasy here, without any foreshadowing and or posterior trascendence, and never does it again.

* {{Squick}}: Hannibal having a private orgy with his ''brother'' Mago in his tent after the battle of Cannae.

** While admittedly inevitable due to the LoadsAndLoadsOfCharacters of the trilogy, a common note is that most of the CharacterDevelopment of the trilogy focuses solely in the good guys, if not in Scipio, Lelius and Plautus alone (as well as Emilia in the third book), while for the rest, even the most important characters remain relatively unexplored not matter how pagetime they occupy. Hannibal might be the best example, as although he is clearly meant to be a parallel VillainProtagonist, he has little actual personality outside his military exploits, and unlike Scipio, his childhood, love life and relationships are skipped over or barely touched. It comes to the point he doesn't have real differences from his father Hamilcar and his brother Hasdrubal, making all of them look like cookie cutter generic villains without probably pretending it.
** Fabius and Cato follow close to Hannibal, as their characterizations are strictly limited to their villainy, often cartoonishly so. The latter does show an interesting edge when it is repeatedly suggested that he doesn't completely approve of Fabius's gratuitous wickedness, but this is not explored upon, and he ultimately never grows beyond his TallDarkAndSnarky outlook. Fabius is an even worse case given that every chance to give him depth, including his reaction to the death of his son, is carefully excised and/or used to make him even more shallowy evil. They both might be among the few cases where a novelized version of a historical character is actually ''less'' layered and complex than what we know about the real one.

* {{Narm}}: Emilia becoming angry with grief when Publius reveals to her the death of her father in Cannae should be an emotional, relatable moment, but the subsequent scene of her literally beating him with a ton of punches, especially given that he is visibly wounded from the battle, becomes a BlackComedyBurst in its own right.
* {{Squick}}: Hannibal having a private orgy with his ''brother'' Mago in his tent after the battle of Cannae.