Rubicon by Tom Holland - History book or thinly veiled novel

[Narukami]

I think you are quite right Jona -- a good editorial review by another historian and Holland following up on the advice would indeed have resulted in a better book. Perhaps he will do a revised edition and take these points into consideration.

My sense is that Rubicon does not suffer from these same types of mistakes, but having said that I will probably be proven wrong when Rubicon is examined in detail with a critical eye.

And of course, these same arguments apply to a film like Gladiator or others of that ilk. Yes they are works of fiction and touted as same, but we all know only too well the power of the moving image to influence the general public. I would dare say more people have been given an erroneous image of ancient Rome by Gladiator than by Rubicon.

This is not to excuse Holland for errors made that could have been easily avoided (or corrected) but actually a lament that Scott was not just a little more rigorous in his film making as he was with his first film. Kurosawa was famously rigorous in his art, and it shows. Yes, Scott's films have all made more money at the box office, but art is not always, and in fact seldom is, a matter of ticket sales.

Be that as it may, your points Jona are well and fairly taken.


:wink:

Narukami