Lets start with the positive elements. They are a few. This is a first novel and, despite its serious flaws, it is an exciting read. The topic chosen by the author is somewhat original: the First Punic War (264-241 BC, the Roman Republic versus Carthage), with a strong emphasis on naval warfare. Another caveat: historical sources are either Roman or Greek, meaning they are biaised. There aren't any Carthagenian sources simply because the Romans obliterated Carthage and its civilisation when they finally conquered the city in 146 BC, meaning that any author will have difficulties when trying to describe elements related to Carthage. However, the book could have been much better. As others has mentioned, it associates carboard characterization and atrocious research (or no research at all?). The book is supposed to be, after all, a work of HISTORICAL fiction. The author should be expected to get his facts right and to have done his research properly. He obviously has not been bothered to do so, neither has he properly checked the consistency of the story. A few examples:
1) Rowers in triremes or quinqueremes (trieres and penteres, for the Greeks) were NOT slaves in Antiquity and were NOT chained, contrary to what Holywood's Ben Hur (and the author of this book) state
2) The port of Broelium is pure invention and, throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages, fleets of war galleys were rather inefficent at conducting blockades, if only because they had very little storage capacity and needed to put in every 24 or (at most) 48 hours to replenish their reserves of fresh water. This also means that they rarely were capable (and even more rarely wanted) to sail by night
3) Contrary to what is suggested, there is little tide in the Mediterranean...
4) While Rome did build its first fleet of fives to fight against Carthage, the story about a captured Carthagenian five serving as a model is unlikely to be true, altough it is related by Polybios. Fives had been built more then 130 years before by Syracuse and had become the main warship in the East after the death of Alexander. In addition, relations between Rome and Carthage had become increasingly tense in the years prior to 264 BC, so that it is more than likely than Rome's effort to build up its fleet began in fact before the war started and was carried out over a number of years before it had enough fives to confront Carthage on the sea.
5) The story is a bit too one-sided, with the Romans appearing as the "goodies" and the Carthaginians as the "badies", despite a few shady characters in both camps. In fact, Carthage and Rome had been allied against Pyrrhos, King of Epiros, a few years before and Rome used a pretext to start the war because of its ambition to conquer Sicily.
A pity and a shame. It could have been a superb read if the author had been less slopy. I'll nevertheless read the next one, hoping that some of these flaws get corrected.