Roman Historical Fiction

[Zeke]

Did anyone ever read The Skystone? By Jack Whyte its a great legened to King Authur and a good account of Roman Britian before it fell to Barbarians.

 

Also know any other good Roman Historical Fiction Books??

EAGLE IN THE SNOW IS ON THE TOP OF MY LIST.

 

Sorry about spelling

Zeke

[Primus Pilus]

Yes, I've read those. The first is an exceptional book. Tying in the 'Arthur' legend to Roman Britain was very well done, though I prefer the early books to later in the series.

 

There is a great deal of Roman era historical fiction, but unfortunately the author pool is quite limited.

Still there are some very good ones. I'm partial to Colleen McCullough's 'First Man in Rome' series, not only because its brilliant, but because of the subject matter... Marius, Sulla, Caesar and the Fall of the Republic.

 

Here's a list of many books in no particular order. Most authors at least are listed even if all their books aren't. If I've left anyone out, please let me know. Roman Fiction Books

[Ursus]

Interesting. I desperately need a break from my heady non-fiction studies. I'm putting those Whyte books at the top of my reading list.

 

I tried reading Colleen McCullough's books, but didn't like them. You either love her writing style or don't. I'm in the minority of Romanophiles who didn't, I guess.

 

Regarding the King Arthor legend, when I was a young tyke I read Stephen Lawhead's "Pendragon" epic. It's standard fantasy fluff - the survivors of Atlantis mix with Dark Age Celts in Britain, the druids are a bunch of peaceful nature worshippers, etc. But the epic does start out in Romano-Celtic Britain. The Romans train a Celtic calvary band to fight off Saxon invadors, and that becomes the very early beginnings of the Knights of the Round Table. I say if you can get it free from your library, you might enjoy it as escapist drivel.

[Jazz]

I am kinda bored of the Arthur story, heard too many versions. I liked Colleen McCullough's books (or atleast the ones I read). Haven't read many other fiction history books more of a facts person so I like Adrian Goldsworthy for my dose of Roan reading.

[Moonlapse]

I thought Jack Whyte's books were awesome. One thing I liked is that it doesn't feel like a King Arthur story... you only occasionally remember that it supposedly is...

[kama]

I've read Simon Scarrow and Conn Iggulden. Simon has the under the eagle 5 book series and Conn has the Emperor series of 2 books so far. Emperor wasnt really that greatly written but it was ok i guess. under the eagle is pretty neat. i liked it. however its hard to get his books here in america. they are coming here 4 years after they have been written in england.

[Zeke]

I

thought Jack Whyte's books were awesome. One thing I liked is that it doesn't feel like a King Arthur story... you only occasionally remember that it supposedly is...

 

 

yeah I get that feeling to. It seems really romanaized I just finished the Skystone and now I am going to move on to the singing sword. Wonder if thats any good.............

Zeke

[Julian]

I tried reading Colleen McCullough's books, but didn't like them. You either love her writing style or don't. I'm in the minority of Romanophiles who didn't, I guess.

You are not alone. I hated her books. She writes as if what she is saying is the exact truth. She takes herself way too seriously!

 

I am currently reading David Wishart's books. I began with Nero, and now I am reading the Marcus Corvinus series. I am up to Sejanus. I really like thse books. He has a nice sense of what I think Rome would have been like. He doesn't take himself too seriously either. I can hardly wait to pick these books up once I have set them down.

[Danno]

One of my favorite treatments of the Arthur story is Bernard Cornwell's "Warlord Chronicles": The Winter King, Enemy of God and Excalibur... he does a wonderful job with the battles and the entire story is very believable, stripped of egregious fantasy elements. It's hugely entertaining.

[paolo]

i agree with ursus and julian, colleen mccullough is too dry. her prose is riddled with explanations and descriptions. if i'm going to read dry stuff, i'll just go for a 'regular' history, why struggle through a fiction ? i think conn uggulden is a very artful writer. he doesn't get bogged down the way mccullough does.

 

he artfully reveals not only the personality of the historical figures, but their very soul. there is not a lot of background simply because this is a more psychological approach. the focus is about character development, learning what it feels like to live in ancient rome.

mr. iggulden introduces five characters in the first few pages, and manages to weave enough clues into the action and dialogue to effectively develop all personalities, without resorting to artless paragraphs of description and explanation. only an accomplished writer can carry this off. This is what makes a story move along. if the reader must wade through countless paragraphs without any action, the storyline stagnates.

 

his writing style is phenomenal. through dialogue and gesture, he reveals wonderfully rounded out personalities.

 

gifted writing paired with an intriguing glimpse into the emotions of ancient romans.

 

another popular author who does not impress me is mary renault

 

paolo

[Primus Pilus]

Colleen McCullough is highly regarded because of her research and relative sense of accuracy. Conn Iggulden spins of a tale that has little to with history and is complete fiction. It's just a preference in style. If I read 'fiction' I still like the feeling that it could be the real thing.

[paolo]

while i will not dispute that colleen mccullough is highly regarded in her research and her accuracy, that is not enough to make her an artful fiction writer.

 

i do take issue with that conn uggulden spins a tale that has little to do with history. while mr. uggulden takes chronological liberties with his work, he is not unlike so many writers, through the ages who have done the same and have been highly esteemed ie: homer and the authors of the king arthur legends and the bible. rather than emphasizing chronological accuracy, their aim is to provide a feel for the time period and types of people on all levels. it is for this reason they might combine a number of historical figures into one fictional character or likewise blend historical events. this approach is different but not less accurate in order to provide a history which both entertains and informs, while the reader understands strict chronology is to be found elsewhere.

 

in contrast to mr uggulden's work, i mention dan brown who is not only historically inaccurate but fails to provide believeable characters, by 'dumbing down' their dialogue (what art historian in the last hundred years would not immediately recognize leonardo da vinci's backward handwriting ?) he also does not provide a disclaimer, on the contrary he claims to have done careful research. mr uggulden on the other hand puts in a disclaimer, revealing where he changed the facts. as long as this is done, then the reader is not misled.

 

what ms. mccullough fails to do, is provide a flowing account to flesh out history. i would imagine she would make a better non-fiction author. as you say, it's a preference in style, and i offer my viewpoint in the spirit of friendliness, always enjoying a healthy volley of opinions. obviously a lot of people disagree with me, both are best sellers, where mr uggulden has not yet achieved that status.

[Primus Pilus]

I don't begrudge anyone for not liking McCullough. A preference of style can't be forced on anyone.

 

My problem with Iggulden has nothing to do with style. If he was writing another type of fiction, or even 'historical' fiction without using well known events and characters I may like him. However, he takes a well known character, Caesar, and time period, the Fall of the Republic, and butchers the accuracy, seemingly with little deference for the facts. Mind you, nobody knows the exact facts of relationships and so forth, but some of Iggulden's concepts are simply implausible.

 

If someone is writing sci-fi or fantasy, the author has complete control over the world and characters developed. There is no need to do research or stick within a certain timetable of events and such. If they want to write historical fiction, they should at least try to make it in line with known historical issues.

[paolo]

u make a good point that iggulden uses a specific historical figure when if he didn't want to stick with the facts, he could have used a representative figure, although mixing the two, true figures with 'composite' ones as well as 'summarizing' events and other people, have been done. as far as the implausibility of some things, now that would be a valid point, isolated. everything should be 'believeable' even in the fiction realm.

 

i'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage of what might be implausible, as i am only an amateur reader of history. if you happen to remember specific examples, i would be curious to know what they are. (i don't know how long ago you read the book)

 

what are some of your favourite history writers, especially of rome ? i am currently reading "the founders of the western world" by michael grant, who seems to have just passed away. what do you think of his work ? (i'm new here as you know, maybe you have posts on this elsewhere on the site)

 

paolo

 

ps: i use these bigger fonts because i have an lcd screen and it makes font tiny and added to this, my screen sits at the back of the desk so i can work in front of it, i don't do it because i think my posts should be more noticeable, i wish everyone would 'raise their font'

[Primus Pilus]

It has been a while since I read the book so I admit I may be a little off here.

 

As I recall, Caesar's father was referred to as Julius. That's just wrong, he would've been known as Gaius or Caesar, the Roman's did not refer to eachother by their nomen or middle name. The only exceptions were with people who had no cognomen or third name (ie. Gaius Marius).

 

The book has Caesar growing up in the Italian countryside. Its quite well documented that Caesar spent most of his youth within the 'slums' or subura of Rome in an ancient apartment like complex. (Insula)

 

In the book, he arrived in Rome seemingly and completely unaware of Roman political traditions and customs. The man is a patrician of the highest order, and yet he seemed to not only not know who his clients may have been, but even what a client was.

 

He loves a slave girl. Caesar's own well documented behavior regarding his own dignity makes this completely out of the realm of possibility. The historical Caesar may have pursued her for sexual satisfaction, but never would've allowed it to occupy his thoughts. He was a notorious philanderer, and it seems doubtful that any one women ever could've done this to him, except for perhaps his first wife, Cornelia. He apparantly so dearly loved her, that he refused Sulla's command to divorce her to prove his loyalty (she was the daughter of Sulla's enemy Cinna).

 

There was something about the friendship with Marcus that also bothered me. Didn't Marcus turn out to be someone important? Like Brutus or Antonius? I can't quite remember. Either way, something still doesn't seem right, but it was almost two years ago that I read it, lol.

 

There is more, but I was terribly frustrated, and didn't retain much of the book. Wasn't there like a gladiator trainer or something? Caesar would've been trained and schooled in Rome, very likely on the Campus Martius like other patricians. Did Iggulden kill off his mother? In reality his mother lived until Caesar was in the middle of his Gallic campaign as a middle aged man.

 

Maybe I need to re-read it, so I don't commit the sin of blasting his book with stuff he didn't do

 

I hate to sound terrible about it too. I really did like his style. I comapred it to a Huck Finn style of adventure. If it only wasn't about someone so well known as Caesar I probably would've liked it alot.