Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.9 AVERAGE
3.9 AVERAGE
Excellent dramatisation. Can't wait to read the rest of the series.
As a piece of writing, this deserves 2 stars from a technical point of view. It attempts to setup a remarkable character with defining points in childhood for a personage that was born self aware to a desire for greatness. A coming of age story in no uncertain terms.
The mortal sin committed here though, as other low raters have noted, are the gross liberties taken with actual historical details. And they are gross liberties.
There were entire chunks of story where I felt I was just drifting off. I am already forgetting significant chunks because my mind began to grind into fact checking mode with "that doesn't sound right" and "I don't remember ever reading about that" to "who in the fuck are these people masquerading as ___insert Marius/Sulla/Cesar___"
Granted the childhood of Caesar is undocumented, and a little creative speculation may be permissible, but the earliest portions of "Caesar" that are actually documented.. his rise with the initial support of men like Marius and Crassus, is a remarkable story in its own right and only needed rephrasing into a novel's dramatic narrative... but to mutilate, and essentially dumb down one of the most intriguing persons/events in global history just to compensate for a very questionable, and sometimes utterly un-Roman depiction of a "Roman" childhood. is astounding in its own right.
Thus far I am also skeptical regarding the attitude towards Roman licentiousness and Caesar's cocksmanship. A sort of montage ensues where Caesar, after popping his cherry with traditional 20th century high school trepidation and innocence, rapidly embraces a noble-class-lifestyle in Rome that suggests Caligula ain't too far around the corner.
And I struggle to absorb the depiction of Sulla... somehow transformed into a pre-imperial Caligula/Nero hybrid meets competent uber-general.
This, again, from a historically aware point of view, almost screams Medieval Catholic Church smear job... or perhaps to stay on par with the era... the way Roman history painted the Etruscans as slatternly and inherently destined to fall due to their base, corrupt nature.
This was an era of true titans, and thus far this first book in the series has established key "titans" as little more than black-&-white genre fiction tropes.
The mortal sin committed here though, as other low raters have noted, are the gross liberties taken with actual historical details. And they are gross liberties.
There were entire chunks of story where I felt I was just drifting off. I am already forgetting significant chunks because my mind began to grind into fact checking mode with "that doesn't sound right" and "I don't remember ever reading about that" to "who in the fuck are these people masquerading as ___insert Marius/Sulla/Cesar___"
Granted the childhood of Caesar is undocumented, and a little creative speculation may be permissible, but the earliest portions of "Caesar" that are actually documented.. his rise with the initial support of men like Marius and Crassus, is a remarkable story in its own right and only needed rephrasing into a novel's dramatic narrative... but to mutilate, and essentially dumb down one of the most intriguing persons/events in global history just to compensate for a very questionable, and sometimes utterly un-Roman depiction of a "Roman" childhood. is astounding in its own right.
Thus far I am also skeptical regarding the attitude towards Roman licentiousness and Caesar's cocksmanship. A sort of montage ensues where Caesar, after popping his cherry with traditional 20th century high school trepidation and innocence, rapidly embraces a noble-class-lifestyle in Rome that suggests Caligula ain't too far around the corner.
And I struggle to absorb the depiction of Sulla... somehow transformed into a pre-imperial Caligula/Nero hybrid meets competent uber-general.
This, again, from a historically aware point of view, almost screams Medieval Catholic Church smear job... or perhaps to stay on par with the era... the way Roman history painted the Etruscans as slatternly and inherently destined to fall due to their base, corrupt nature.
This was an era of true titans, and thus far this first book in the series has established key "titans" as little more than black-&-white genre fiction tropes.
I began this book with almost zero expectations, but after reading this first, I have very huge expectations on the sequels.
The extent of the author's imagination brings the ancient Roman empire before us as their their civilized yet extremely violent lifestyle can be 'seen' through this book. And the story has almost everything for whatever is expected out of a fictional history.
The books length is surprisingly short, as generally historical fiction will be too descriptive and long.
The extent of the author's imagination brings the ancient Roman empire before us as their their civilized yet extremely violent lifestyle can be 'seen' through this book. And the story has almost everything for whatever is expected out of a fictional history.
The books length is surprisingly short, as generally historical fiction will be too descriptive and long.
A great, engaging read outside of the history involved. The character development is exceptional and the story is compelling. However, as a lover of historical fiction, and authors who balance historical facts well (see: Steven Saylor), this series packs a frustrating punch of historical inaccuracy.
I'm giving it 4 stars because the story is well written and engaging. I care about the characters and they are all wonderfully dimensional.
For historical accuracy, this book almost completely fails. I had hoped the epilogue might allude to the great leaps taken with the facts as we know them, but it does not. Not only are the facts stretched, so much of the story is blatantly shuffled in ways that add nothing to the story. So many changes that added nothing to the story.
This story would have been much more successful had it either hovered more closely to the facts of Caesar's life (which we have Caesar's own writings to corroborate, so anything less is a leap), or the author had simply replaced these historical characters with fictional ones.
Overall this is a great, engaging read outside of the historical setting. But for those of us familiar with this fascinating period in the Roman Empire/Republic, there are parts that are downright maddening. This period in western history is fascinating without needless, and often careless and arbitrary changes.
I'm giving it 4 stars because the story is well written and engaging. I care about the characters and they are all wonderfully dimensional.
For historical accuracy, this book almost completely fails. I had hoped the epilogue might allude to the great leaps taken with the facts as we know them, but it does not. Not only are the facts stretched, so much of the story is blatantly shuffled in ways that add nothing to the story. So many changes that added nothing to the story.
This story would have been much more successful had it either hovered more closely to the facts of Caesar's life (which we have Caesar's own writings to corroborate, so anything less is a leap), or the author had simply replaced these historical characters with fictional ones.
Overall this is a great, engaging read outside of the historical setting. But for those of us familiar with this fascinating period in the Roman Empire/Republic, there are parts that are downright maddening. This period in western history is fascinating without needless, and often careless and arbitrary changes.
William Bernhardt, author of Nemesis, is quoted on The Gates of Rome as saying "what Robert Graves did for Claudius, Conn Iggulden now does for...Julies Caesar." This would be true of Robert Graves was a thriller writing moron willing to ignore factual history at a moment's notice for mere literary convenience.
In his historical note afterward, Iggulden does mention that most of Julius Caesar's childhood is a mystery to historians. Iggulden could be forgiven for taking his liberties in with this period of the future dictator's life without taking too much flack (if only because his theories could not be disproven). However, there is little excuse for how he bastardized the competition between Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
Iggulden portarys Marius as being a populist infinitely younger than he was by the time Julius Caesar was born. Sulla is reduced to being an implied deviant obsessed with worshiping Aphrodite, but may still be a brilliant general in his spare time. In the book’s "climatic" final battle, Sulla murders Marius outside a siege of Rome while Marius shouts to his legion to burn the city. Other than Sulla marching on Rome, both events are purely fiction. Marius died weeks after assuming his unprecedented seventh consulship. Sulla went on to fill the vacuum left by Marius death, but would peacefully resign the powers of a dictator after reforming the Roman constitution. Both men were far better than the shallow, vain political power-mongers Iggulden paints them as.
Leaving aside his glaring fictionalization, Iggulden seems to delight in creating wholly unappealing main characters. I found it difficult to care about Caesar, who fluctuates between petulant aristocratic child and rich California play boy during the course of the book. His childhood friend, the fictitious Marcus, is little more than a two-dimensional exploration of a wanna-be Legionnaire. His appearances in the novel after leaving Caesar in Rome have a tacked on feel and do little more than jarringly move the reader from one part of the ancient Mediterranean world to the other.
The only part of Iggulden's fictional experiment that works is his secondary characters. They keep the book entertaining, but largely fall into the crushing stereotypes of the surrogate father (Tuburk), the mentor (Renius), the fortune-teller (Cabera), and the first love (Alexandria). If they were played by actors, a critic would praise them for managing to make the most out of a horribly written screenplay with ineptly designed characters.
I may have been spoiled by Graves' duology on Claudius and McCullough's Master of Rome series, but that leaves Iggulden little excuse to mass produce such historical garbage. I would rank both series as infinitely superior to Gates of Rome, and definitely say that HBO's Rome series was far better at capturing Rome as it was (knowing full well all its flaws) than this novel. Reading the remainder of the series would be enjoyable only to pick Iggulden apart.
In his historical note afterward, Iggulden does mention that most of Julius Caesar's childhood is a mystery to historians. Iggulden could be forgiven for taking his liberties in with this period of the future dictator's life without taking too much flack (if only because his theories could not be disproven). However, there is little excuse for how he bastardized the competition between Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
Iggulden portarys Marius as being a populist infinitely younger than he was by the time Julius Caesar was born. Sulla is reduced to being an implied deviant obsessed with worshiping Aphrodite, but may still be a brilliant general in his spare time. In the book’s "climatic" final battle, Sulla murders Marius outside a siege of Rome while Marius shouts to his legion to burn the city. Other than Sulla marching on Rome, both events are purely fiction. Marius died weeks after assuming his unprecedented seventh consulship. Sulla went on to fill the vacuum left by Marius death, but would peacefully resign the powers of a dictator after reforming the Roman constitution. Both men were far better than the shallow, vain political power-mongers Iggulden paints them as.
Leaving aside his glaring fictionalization, Iggulden seems to delight in creating wholly unappealing main characters. I found it difficult to care about Caesar, who fluctuates between petulant aristocratic child and rich California play boy during the course of the book. His childhood friend, the fictitious Marcus, is little more than a two-dimensional exploration of a wanna-be Legionnaire. His appearances in the novel after leaving Caesar in Rome have a tacked on feel and do little more than jarringly move the reader from one part of the ancient Mediterranean world to the other.
The only part of Iggulden's fictional experiment that works is his secondary characters. They keep the book entertaining, but largely fall into the crushing stereotypes of the surrogate father (Tuburk), the mentor (Renius), the fortune-teller (Cabera), and the first love (Alexandria). If they were played by actors, a critic would praise them for managing to make the most out of a horribly written screenplay with ineptly designed characters.
I may have been spoiled by Graves' duology on Claudius and McCullough's Master of Rome series, but that leaves Iggulden little excuse to mass produce such historical garbage. I would rank both series as infinitely superior to Gates of Rome, and definitely say that HBO's Rome series was far better at capturing Rome as it was (knowing full well all its flaws) than this novel. Reading the remainder of the series would be enjoyable only to pick Iggulden apart.
An interesting historical book, can't wait to read the rest of the series.
dark
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated