Rubicon by Tom Holland - History book or thinly veiled novel

[Jona Lendering]

If you cannot enjoy this book, it is your loss.

The issue, dear Blah, is not whether the book is enjoyable, but whether the information is sound. Narrative history is not the same as not checking your facts or offering an analysis that is illogical.

Besides, that certain facts are debatable, is not an excuse for saying that a certain distance is six miles on one page, and ten miles on the next one (example from Persian Fire). Even if the book were fiction -which Holland does not claim- there are certain things that ought to be OK.

BTW: the forum rules are that you should use your real name - otherwise, we might think that you're Tom Holland or his publisher, who again tries to influence critical discussion. :wink: (That Holland makes mistakes is one thing, and people may like his style; but that his adviser Cartledge has also written a review, I find unforgivable.)

[Narukami]

Greetings Blah

Welcome to our Forum

You might want to check out the section for New Members that outlines our simple rules and provides a few suggestions on how to get the most out of your time spent here.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=5798


You will find that many of our members are published authors, professors and scholars of note who are happy to share the fruits of their labors with all who are interested in this area of study. We also cover a wide range of topics as evidenced by the discussion currently underway.

Also...

Please remember to include your real world name in your signature, and...

Welcome to the Forum

:wink:

Narukami

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

MADNESS!

It was an excellent book. I would thoroughly recommend it to anyone.

A friend of mine starting flicking through Rubicon one night in my house while I showered. When I came out he asked to borrow it. Surprised (as he does not read any history or show an interest in it) I said of course.

A week later he was ranting, bright eyed about Rome, the republic, Cato, Cicero, Caesar, the civil wars and told me he had ordered goldsworthys Caesar from amazon and asked if I had any more books on the Romans.

This was from a man who previously showed NO interest in history.

If you cannot enjoy this book, it is your loss.

As it says in the preface:
"The reader should take it as a rule of thumb that many statements of fact in theis book could plausibly be contradicted by an opposite interpretation. This is not a consel of despair. Rather, it is a necessary preface to a narrative that has been pieced together from broken shards, but in such a way as to conceal some of the obvious joins and gaps."

"After a spell in the dog house. Narritive history is now squarely back in fashion. Even if, as many have argued, it can only function by imposing upon the random events of the past an artificial pattern."

And reading Goldsworthy he saw that history was completely different :lol:

[Narukami]

Actually...

I'm reading the Goldsworthy bio of Caesar right now and like it very much, but then I also enjoyed Rubicon.

Perhaps it is a bit like someone watching the mini-series of Shogun, and in seeking out more "samurai" films encounters Kurosawa's Seven Samurai or Inagaki's Chushingura and discovers the real art and magic of Japanese cinema.

Or...

Someone watching Gladiator and in seeking more films about ancient Rome discovers...

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.

Just a thought... :roll:

:wink:

Narukami

[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.

[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

[ParthianBow]

I thought Rubicon was an excellent book - as one of the previous members has said - the narrative is excellent. It presents Rome in a way that is accessible to many people, rather than the weighty prose of some academics.

[Jona Lendering]

BTW: the forum rules are that you should use your real name - otherwise, we might think that you're Tom Holland or his publisher, who again tries to influence critical discussion. :wink: (That Holland makes mistakes is one thing, and people may like his style; but that his adviser Cartledge has also written a review, I find unforgivable.)

What gives me the funny idea that "Blah" was indeed Holland himself, or his publisher? We didn't hear a thing from our anonymous guest anymore.

[Timotheus]

BTW: the forum rules are that you should use your real name - otherwise, we might think that you're Tom Holland or his publisher, who again tries to influence critical discussion. :wink: (That Holland makes mistakes is one thing, and people may like his style; but that his adviser Cartledge has also written a review, I find unforgivable.)

What gives me the funny idea that "Blah" was indeed Holland himself, or his publisher? We didn't hear a thing from our anonymous guest anymore.

You think the guy sits at home googling himself so he can jump in places?

[Jona Lendering]

You think the guy sits at home googling himself so he can jump in places?

Unfortunately, I think that that is perfectly possible. We have already seen that Holland or his editor are not below producing fake reviews.

What is worse, I know that there are many writers who "autogoogle". You would be surprised to see how much mail I receive from authors who want me to rewrite parts of my website. Sometimes they try to cover up their errors; usually they point at more recent information than I have access to. For example, Nikos Kokkinos, a well-known specialist in the Herodian dynasty, kindly showed me additional literature; Oliver Hoover of the American Numismatic Society sometimes sends me corrections ("that coin is not Antiochus I, but Antiochus II" - and then I send a message to the museum that has erroneous explanations); Eibert Tigchelaar knows everything about the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are all scholars who found my website by googling themselves, and usually, their information is reliable.

But now, take this review I wrote about a book by Kaveh Farrokh. Within a month after publishing, I received a long, inconsistent message from someone defending Farrokh, and I have the strong suspicion that it was Farrokh himself, or someone very close to him. Now take a look at this page, a debate whether to delete Farrokh's Wikipedia biography (I noticed its existence because I suddenly received a lot of visitors to the review). He has obviously asked all his friends to help him; he is not so very well-known that an internal Wiki debate causes so much attention.

What I am trying to say is that (a) scholars are usually very interested in what is written about them, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing; (b) the example of Farrokh shows how much writers are willing to do to protect their reputation; © Holland and his author are already on record for review fraud. So, to repeat the initial question:

You think the guy sits at home googling himself so he can jump in places?

- the answer is that it is within the realm of the possible. Please note that "Blah" has been a one time visitor.

[Epictetus]

:lol: Interesting!

I remember Mary Beard (whom I frankly idolize) wrote something similar on her blog.

[quote]Then there are those innocent customer reviews. Are they all written by real punters, or by the authors paid up friends or enemies? Is it like those suspiciously frank hotel reviews on TripAdvisor (“Quite the best hotel in Beachville and far better than the awful Hotel Sunny next doorâ€