Opinions on "Cleopatra\'s Kidnappers"?

[Gaius Valerius Celer]

Well, I have to admit I'm guilty of falling for the Dando-Collins trap of disguising theory and fiction by presenting it as fact. My question is, has he improved at all with his third book, Cleopatra's Kidnappers? I call on the wiser and more knowledgeable members of this community to guide me in this; on the surface, the book looks full of good information, but I fear it may be like his previous two disasters.

While I'm on the subject of accurate history, I've seen that Adrian Goldsworthy is respected as a good author. Any opinions on In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire? That's the book I'm currently working on.

Thank you all in advance.

- Zach B. a.k.a. Gaius Valerius Celer

[Nathan Ross]

Ye Gods, Mr Dando-Collins can certainly turn out the new titles! - wasn't it only last year that 'Nero's Killing Machine' was published? I did read somewhere that he spent twenty years (or something) researching his first book - clearly he's given up on this approach.

I haven't seen 'Cleopatra's Kidnappers' - I doubt it's even published here in the UK yet. Looking on the Amazon website, though, it does appear that he might be using the same wayward technique with regard to fact and fiction. Here's a quote from their review:

[quote]Julius Caesar was nothing if not bold. When, in the wake of his defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus his victorious legions refused to march another step under his command, he pursued his fleeing rival into Egypt with an impossibly small force of Gallic and German cavalry, raw Italian recruits, and nine hundred Spanish prisoners of warâ€â€Â

[Gaius Valerius Celer]

Thank you very much for the reply, the information you provide is invaluable to me. I'm currently writing a book report on this book for school, and it will be good to be able to support my review with concrete proof of D-C's inconsistencies. I only wish I had found out not to trust a D-C book before now; could have saved myself some money. Oh well, we live and learn.

[Nathan Ross]

I found a copy of the book today, and had a quick look through the opening chapters, mainly to try and discover where the author gets his information on the supposed Pompeian origins of the legion. At the risk of further kicking a dead horse, I was not terribly impressed. For someone writing a third book about the Roman army, Dando-Collins makes some very basic errors from the start - a reference to the 'standard issue dark-red military tunic' might be debatable (!), his 'puglio dagger' (sic) might be a typo, but his understanding of rank structure is way off. He uses the annoying technique of referring to Roman ranks with 'modern equvilants' - 'colonel', 'major general', and so on - which instantly confused any real understanding of who was who. His contention that the six tribunes of a legion were all political placemen and served for a single year before entering politics and 'hoping one day to command a legion' is seriously off track - only senators could command legions, and five of the six tribunes would have been equestrian career soldiers. He later refers to one Q Cornificius as 'Caesar's quartermaster', and puts him in charge of reorganising the army after Pharsalus. Cornificius, however, was senatorial quaestor in Caesar's province of Illyricum, thus nowhere near Pharsalus and far from being a 'quartermaster', whatever that refers to! I'm sure there are many more errors, if anyone has the time or inclination to search.

The matter of the 'Pompeian' sixth legion is more fallacious. D-C basically believes that all references to a numbered legion in ancient sources must refer to the same body of men - he therefore goes about constructing a detailed itinerary to 'explain' how the same unit could have moved around the empire so rapidly, fighting for several different commanders. He also believes that the sixth legion that fought for Caesar in gaul were loaned to him by Pompey's commander in Spain, despite Caesar having written that he raised the legion freshly in cisalpine Gaul in 52BC. Is Caesar a liar? D-C seems to think so. Suetonius is also wrong, it appears, to write that the 6th fought for Caesar at Dyrrachium - as his itinerary has the sixth in Spain fighting for Pompey at that point, D-C casually offers that Suetonius must have been mistaken, and actually referred to the 9th instead!

It may well be that the author has some genuine 'new findings' to support later episodes in the book (I'm not sure where he gets the idea that Cleopatra was 'kidnapped' from, for example - all the histories I know have her presenting herself to Caesar voluntarily...) but I don't fancy buying the book to find out. Perhaps Zach/G.Celer could present a precis of his book review here? It would be interesting to discover what a closer reading turns up.

[Gaius Valerius Celer]

Another very informational reply. As I previously stated, I know far less than I'd like about this history, and so can't really pass my own judgement on the historic authenticity of D-C's claims. He seems to rely heavily on the writings of a "Col." Aulus Hirtius for his history of the Alexandrian war. I do not know how much is known about this figure; I'd never heard of him until this book personally.

D-C does describe the famous story of Cleopatra hiding herself in a rug in order to smuggle herself into the palace and to see Caeser. The "kidnapping" takes place when Caesar learns that Achillas is moving his army back to Alexandria. D-C wrote, "We know from Caesar himself the outcome of what he did next; the exact methodology has always remained a mystery, until now." My question is...how do we know now? D-C never really says. He claims that Caesar made a "night operation" where he snuck his troops into the main section of the palace, snatched Ptolemy, and rushed him back to his own section of the palace. Arsinoe and "Ptolemy Jr." were also supposedly taken, and Cleopatra was more politely taken to Caesar's section of the palace. Hence, the "kidnapping."

I would post my entire review except I am not very pleased with how it turned out, and do not believe it would contribute much to this discussion; I wrote it with my teacher in mind, not those who might actually understand the history.

[Praefectusclassis]

Aulus Hirtius (consul 43 BC) was an officer of Caesar and responsible for the 8th book of the Gallic War. He is usually thought to be the 'Pseudo Caesar' who wrote the Alexandrian War. Hirtius was a "fluent and reasonably painstaking writer" according to the Oxford Classical Dictionary.