Rubicon by Tom Holland - History book or thinly veiled novel

[Jona Lendering]

I think we are still waiting for a really great film about ancient Rome but we all agree that at least films like Gladiator often inspire viewers to seek out more and results in them discovering the world of Ancient History.

Perhaps we can say the same of Rubicon.

Yes and no. Yes, because anything that raises someone's interest and gives him something to be passionate about, is good.

No, because with a little bit more effort, Holland would have written a much better book. I already indicated that I have not read Rubicon, but Persian Fire could without much effort have been converted into a book of sufficient quality. If only a good historian had pointed out to Holland that the preface, with its refuted arguments about the war's importance, could have been abbreviated, and that a final chapter ought to be added about the three last years of the war (478-476)... I think that would have been one week's work. And Holland ought to have read the book by Briant, which he claims to have consulted. That would have reduced the number of erroneous statements with 50%. That's another week of work.

So, I think that just two weeks of extra work would have turned an unnecessary book into a good book. Essentially, it is not Holland's mistake: his advisers ought to have told him. Amelie Kuhrt must have known the importance of the Briant book (she has written a review that is almost Stalinist in its admiration); why she has not told Holland, or why Holland has chosen to ignore it, I do not know. As to Cartledge, he seems to be unaware of the Meyer-Weber debate; which is something I cannot explain, although he is not the only British scholar who makes errors through ignorance of German scholarship. Mens sana qui mal y pense.