RomanArmyTalk

Has anyone read or reviewed this book?<br>
<br>
John <p></p><i></i>

There is a fair thread about it on page 8 of "References and Reviews," the last post being 9/18/02.<br>
I own a copy and do not personally recommend it due to numerous errors in the history and some of his other facts. One of his most glaring factual errors occurs in the section he included about other legions where he has Legion XVIII continuing well after the Varus Disaster. Obviously he is not familiar with the cenotaph of Centurion M. Caelius of Legion XVIII, who was killed along with his two freedman in the "Bello Variano". From that date, 9 CE, there is a conspicuous gap in the Legions (No reuse of XVII, XVIII or XIX).<br>
I don't think Collins was quite able to decide whether he was writing fiction or non-fiction.<br>
Read the other comments in the Thread on "References and Reviews," and go from there.<br>
<br>
Quintius Clavus<br>
<p></p><i></i>

Thanks. Where can I find References and Reviews?<br>
<br>
John <p></p><i></i>

Here's the thread you want:<br>
<br>
pub45.ezboard.com/fromana...=100.topic<br>
<br>
The 'References & Reviews' section is on the main RAT page, just below this one on the list.<br>
<br>
'Caesar's Legion' is, I think, among the worst Roman history titles published in recent years. It's not only misleading, but very badly written. One of my favourite lines from the book goes something like "If Caesar had been alive today, he would have been a keen exponent of night commando operations, amphibious and airborne assaults."<br>
<br>
If Caesar was alive today, he would not have been a soldier! <p></p><i></i>

Ok, thanks, got that.<br>
<br>
Whoa! Why would Caesar not have been a soldier today?<br>
<br>
John <p></p><i></i>

This is going to be a facile comparison, and probably annoy everybody, but...<br>
<br>
In my view, Caesar was a politician first and foremost. In the late Republic (and other periods of Roman history) the path to political success led through military glory - hence Caesar's war in Gaul and everything that followed. Today the situation is somewhat different, and although in recent years there have been top military figures entering politics in the US, Caesar as a patrician (or its modern equivilent) would not need to follow this route - he would be a charismatic political mastermind with presidential ambitions. JFK springs to mind.<br>
<br>
I can't see any modern US general leading his army on Washington - but perhaps that's just my lack of understanding of American politics <p></p><i></i>

Bill Clinton as Caesar? Bubba!!!?? <p></p><i></i>

I love the way you assume JC would be an American if he were born into today's world. If we're avoiding Italy, isn't it just as likely that he'd become head of a small African republic? I'd say his peculiar talents would still be useful in a number of places where the generals still hold the cards.<br>
<br>
Conn <p></p><i></i>

Conn - I wasn't assuming that Caesar would be an American because I'm one myself (I'm not)! - I was just thinking of a modern equivalent, and (without a particularly close analysis) the USA seemed the best parallel in terms of international power (and possibly political structure) to the Rome of the late republic. Caesar-type figures doubtless abound the world over, although I could not really picture him as the leader of a UK opposition party <p></p><i></i>

I'd say you're right about UK politics. Not a decent leader in a bucket of them, as far as I can see. It is an interesting idea though, that these alpha types might rise to the top in any society. Good idea for a fantasy book, bringing him back and letting him loose in London or New York.<br>
<br>
Mind you, the language problem would be a terrible handicap.<br>
<br>
Conn<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>