Customer Reviews

The Death of Kings (Emperor, Book 2)

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

After reading the first one I stated that I thought the series would get better and better.
Unfortunately not., but it's no worse than the first.
Any complaints about historical mangling in the first novel will only be increased on reading this one and I suspect it'll either get great reviews or bad reviews depending on your need for historical accuracy.
Iggulden's second novel `Emperor: The Death of Kings' opens with the young tessarius Gaius Julius Caesar part of a naval party storming the fortress town of Mytilene to rescue governor Paulus. The chapter serves, as does much of the previous novel and this one, to demonstrate the episodic nature of Caesar's rise through the ranks as he overcomes physical obstacles and personally rescues the governor.
As with the preceding novel anyone with any knowledge of the period and the characters will swiftly realise the gaping historical inaccuracies, fundamental character reversals and disappearances of other key people (Marcus Tullius Cicero the most blatant) continue in this volume. This is neatly demonstrated by Sulla's death at the hands of Tubruk's ice sorbet.
Still....we move swiftly on to the episode with the pirates, a clout to the head being the given cause of Caesar's future epilepsy and follow Marcus Brutus as he returns a centurion and promptly cuts a swathe through the female nobility of Rome with more alacrity after meeting with his mother Servilia who is a high class courtesan. From there we focus on Julius' destruction of Mithridates, his retention of his home in the law courts, his continuing enmity with Suetonius and now the portly Cato and the hiccup with Brutus over the recreation and command of Marius' Primigenia legion (which never existed). Once all this has settled down Julius lopes off with his wolves to take on Spartacus which he does by holding the left flank after Lepidus dies mid-battle. Eventually, both Pompey and Caesar get to avenge themselves on Cato after members of their families are murdered by Cato's command.
By the end this is a good historical fantasy (in fact it's almost an alternative history) best evidenced by the running title of the quartet as Caesar was never an Emperor (in fact it was his suggested kingly ambition that got him assassinated) but historical accuracy is not fundamental to Iggulden's story. An excellent example of this is when by page 190 or so of the hardback version we find the future true first emperor of Rome, Augustus, (who's not Caesar's great nephew but cousin in this interpretation) as a thieving street urchin with his impoverished mother, stealing butcher chops and getting involved in fights before being carted off to Uncle Julius for some horseriding training. Reality is entirely suspended.
So, for its merits as a historical fantasy Iggulden provides a sequel that is faced-paced, easily readable and exciting, providing action, love, politics, war and peace against a tumultuous backdrop of change.
The key to dissatisfaction, however, is that the lack of historicity leaves a slightly sour taste and the characters are two-dimensional which leaves this reader feeling no justice is being done to these historical greats.
I confess the historical purist in me makes me undecided as to whether I will read the third installment but there is no denying it is an exciting, easy read. If writing a flowing historical fantasy plucking some names from Roman history was Iggulden's aim, then he gets 4 stars. If it is intended as historical fiction based on reality it would get one star.
Whatever your thoughts on it, one thing is clear - this needs considerable improvement if it aspires to the dizzy heights of McCullough or Saylor or Davis...

I was not a huge fan of Conn Iggulden's, "The Gates of Rome," his first novel in his planned four-volume "Emperor" series, in which he fictionalizes the life and times of Julius Caesar. He took enormous historical liberties with his tale, and his conceit of keeping the identities of his protagonists (Julius Caesar and his friend-turned-assassin Brutus) secret didn't really work.

Iggulden's second novel in the "Emperor" series, "The Death of Kings," is a much more enjoyable read. Caesar and Brutus are now young men soldiering for Rome, and Iggulden has a knack for writing battle scenes and depicting the soldier's life. Not as poetic as Steven Pressfield, nor quite as violent as Bernard Cornwell, Iggulden is nevertheless capable of spinning a riveting tale. From his opening scene of a night raid on a rebellious Greek city to the climactic battle against Spartacus, Iggulden throws the reader pell-mell into the chaos of battle.

Iggulden also has a command of the realities of daily life in the Roman world. It's refreshing to see history's great figures dealing with the frustrations and agonies of the real world just as we all do -- from pulled muscles to tormenting flies to the pangs of a romance that isn't working. All too often, authors make their protagonists super-human, and Iggulden enjoyably refuses to play this game. Further, without going overboard on the historical details, Iggulden reminds the reader that we are reading about a world centuries gone, but it was nevertheless a civilized world with its own craft and technology.

The novel also gains as Iggulden reduces the elements of mysticism from the first novel. In Book One, Iggulden introduced the entirely fictional (at least as far as I know) healer/mystic Cabera, and his magical powers were out-of-place in Caesar's story. While Cabera is back for Book 2, he generally seems to be more of a man of wisdom and learning than of magic, and that generally helps the novel.

You cannot read Iggulden's works as a fictionalized-yet-historically-accurate account of Caesar's life. Sure, some of the major points are there, such as Caesar's capture by and eventual destruction of the pirates (one of the most enjoyable sections of the book). But, as Iggulden acknowledges in his author's note, he made several major departures from the historical record. Sulla was not murdered by Caesar's friend, Caesar did not slay Mithridates, and there is no evidence that Caesar ever met Spartacus. But these deviations are not a weakness -- Iggulden is trying to tell a rollicking story of the ancient world, and for the most part he succeeds, and succeeds very well.

Not as epic as Colleen McCullouch's "Masters of Rome" series, Iggulden's "Emperor" series is nevertheless shaping up as a thrilling, enjoyable spin through the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of one of history's titanic figures. Here's looking forward to book 3!

If you are interested in a good historical novel that accurately tells the life of Julius Caesar then don't buy this book as Colleen McCullough's series of books on late republican Rome are far better. I won't begin to describe all the historical inaccuracies but Caesar's role in the Mithridatic war and his relationship with Cato are just a few. Another interesting invention is the introduction of Octavian as a small boy about 74BC. He wasn't even born until 63BC! Iggulden also seems to have little understanding of the Roman army of the time. While the army structure described is reasonably accurate for the 2nd century BC, the hastati, triarii, etc had been abolished under Marius and the army of the time was the standard legion-cohort-century structure.

Apart from all this, none of the characters are particularly interesting except perhaps for Spartacus. The Spartacus revolt is perhaps the most interesting part of the book and is even reasonably historically accurate.

The sad thing is that many people will read this book thinking that it reflects true Roman history when the real history is actually far more interesting.

Mr. Iggulden has the ability to craft a nicely-told story in such an action-packed way that I'm surprised he is a novelist and not a screen-play writer. With so much rich history and so many fascinating personages during the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire, does one really need to make things up to be a good read? I don't think.

Brutus was NEVER a centurion, for goodness sakes! Aristocracy filled the officer ranks, not the non-coms. Centurion ranking would have been an insult, if not an utter impossibility. The ultimate example 'non-reality' is the fabrication regarding the poisoning death of Sulla . . . a glaring historic inaccuracy. After reading that, the book just became another alternative history novel.

And yes, the pirates were crucified, every last one of them. Mr. Iggulden apparently believes that his readers don't have the stomach for that, or he is trying to paint a portrait of Caesar as if he had the moral sensibilities of today. Nothing could be further from the truth . . . just like this novel.

If you want to read a gripping accounting of Caesar's capture, captivity, escape, and eventual revenge upon the pirates, I would suggest reading `Cutter's Island' by Vincent Panella. It is told in the first person, from Caesar's perspective, and is a vastly superior account of this event in the young Caesar's life.

First off, I love historical fiction, in particular Roman historical fiction. In fact, I write Roman historical novels. One thing I took pride in with my own novels, is that while fiction, they are still based around actual events, and I made every effort to not change known historical facts. If I did, it was completely unintentional. Unfortunately, the Emperor series makes no effort whatsoever to keep with historical fact. I give it two stars because it is an interesting story that keeps you interested. However, Mr Iggulden would have been better served using made up characters instead of historical personas that we know so much about. To be honest, I found the actual historical events surrounding Caesar to be more interesting than what was made up, so I say "why change it?"

Some of the errors I found have already been addressed, so some of this may seem redundant. Some others may not seem so obvious.

- Caesar is a Tesserarius at the beginning of the book. In truth this would be impossible, since a Tesserarius was a Soldier from the ranks, along the lines of a modern-day Staff Sgt to Sgt First Class. Such men did not rise up to become Tribunes or Legates in command of Legions, given the restrictions placed on the social orders.

- Octavian is shown as a nine year old thief living with an impoverished mother. HUH? Octavian grew up privileged, and in fact had not even been born at the time of this book.

- The Primigenia Legion of Marius never existed. There was a Legion with the monicker Primigenia, however it was the XXII Legion, formed under Caligula in 39 A.D.

- Caesar's famous Tenth Legion was not formed out of a Legion that suffered decimation for cowardice. The concept of decimation is used liberally in both books and movies, when in reality it was an extreme form of punishment (where one in every ten men would be executed at random) that was rarely used. After all, how much sense did it really make to arbitrarily kill off 10% of your men at random? Mass punishments were rarely used; most often offenders were punished individually. Without going into detail, I found that the actual circumstances surrounding the famous Tenth to be more interesting.

In the end, I find it frustrating that books that totally abominate history seem to sell so well. Whether or not the author has a disclaimer, people will often read this and take it at face value, or at least think that it has some basis in historical fact. Reality is that it deviates from history more than it keeps with it. This series really should be listed as an "alternative history." The name of the series itself is completely wrong, given (as many have already noticed) that Julius Caesar was never Emperor. Nowhere under any list of Roman Emperors will you see the name Julius Caesar.

Darn, *gladius et caligae*. For what it is - sword and sandals fantasy, not historical fiction, and there is a difference - this is great value. Much derring is done. Scarcely a swash is left unbuckled. If you liked 'Gladiator' you'll swear by this, and please refrain from going 'huh?' as noble patrician Julius Caesar works his way up from corporal, Octavian Augustus cameos as a street urchin years before he was born, and ... well, some of the fans may have trouble spelling Caesar but they know what they like. (If nothing about this tale strikes you as offbeat, I'd like to interest you in a valuable stake in the Pontifex Maximus.) The series so far doesn't come within ave distance of McCullough's 'Masters of Rome', but to be fair it doesn't aim to. This is history lite.

No sooner have we met Corporal Caesar than he is captured by pirates, ransomed, and returns with a mob of heavies to demand his money back (don't say 'me too' at the back, this bit really happened). Pausing only to put down old King Mithridates of Pontus (who had plenty of practice at being put down but none of it against Caesar), he returns in triumph to Rome and makes the exalted rank of military tribune. After that there's some political stuff before it falls to young Julius to save the Republic from Kirk Douglas (you've seen the movie - shocking, our hero didn't even get a bit part.) And there are two volumes to come.

To take an analogy you may be familiar with, it's as if Bernard Cornwell depicted Sergeant Wellington winning the Battle of Trafalgar. I have no principled objection to this but I can't help asking: why? Don't let me put you off. Mr Iggulden is a fluent writer and some of the background verges on the authentic. There is an Afterword in which the author owns up to some of the liberties he takes with the story. I'm sure he knows what he's doing, but do all his readers? I'm looking forward to the episode where Caesar stabs Brutus for two-timing him with the Queen of Sheba. Now there's an aspect of Caesar's penchants that we don't hear about.

This series is well written, with some interesting insights about the figures involved in the death of the Roman Republic, but Iggulden takes too many liberties with the facts to justify a description of "historical." Events happen years out of date, characters removed from their places and thrust onto the stage, natural deaths becoming murders; they all detract from an otherwise good read. At least the author freely acknowledges the changes he has wrought.

About the nicest thing I can say about this book's predecessor (The Gates of Rome) is that it left me interested enough to read the sequel. Unfortunately, Iggulden once again twists history to suit his own plots and doesn't have any compelling characters to show for it.

The biggest annoyance I have with this series is the blatant disregard for historical fact, especially considering that the publisher has promoted the series as "the perfect blend of history and fiction". The somewhat distorted history of the last book is further mangled in the followup. I wouldn't be surprised if Caesar kills Brutus if the discrepancies continue to increase. I do not accept the argument that the historical record can be altered to produce a better plot. It comes off as half-hearted. Iggulden should take some advice from Guy Gavriel Kay and change the names of characters and locations and write a fantasy novel instead. At least he can mask any deliberate inaccuracies. If you want exciting books that keep true to the history, read Steven Saylor.

Another weakness demonstrated by Iggulden is his character development. In good historical fiction, characters are as complex as history records them. Sulla is not all evil, Marius is not all good, and mobs never speak with one voice. The first book suffered from a sloppy writing style that featured a lot of grinning. The author just loves that expression. Thankfully the narrative runs a little smoother in this book (and there is considerably less grinning).

I might tread on to the next novel, mostly because the history is changing so much that it actually adds an element of surprise. This is better suited for fantasy novels, but I can afford to continue, albeit at a paperback price.

I am a lover of all things related to Rome and the Roman empire, but I can't believe how bad this book is. It would be different if Rome had a ho-hum, unexciting history but given its true history I don't know why anyone would put forth such a poor, and frankly, LESS interesting backstory to what were in fact extraordinary events, people, and places.

I'm so glad I checked this out of the library and didn't buy it. It might be the worst book I've EVER read.

I agree with other reviewers, the Colleen McCullough books are wonderful. And for light reading about that era, the Marcus Didius Falco mysteries by Lindsey Davis are an enjoyable read. This series, this author, however is an utter waste of time, paper, and ink.

This is the second volume in this novice author's quadrilogy about the rise of Julius Caesar, and it has the same fundamental problem as the first one -- Iggulden's willingness to rewrite and pervert the known facts of history for his own convenience. The action here follows the early careers of Gaius Julius and his closest friend, Marcus Brutus (the documented biography of whom Iggulden almost completely ignores), as they go off to posts as junior legionary officers following the death of the Consul Marius and the dictatorship of the Consul Sulla. Julius was, in fact, captured by pirates, insisted on his ransom being increased beyond what his captors intended, and promised he would pursue them and crucify them when he was released. It's one of the most fascinating true stories in the early life of a truly key figure in Western history, and Iggulden does a pretty good job of it, showing how Caesar's magnetic personality developed. I thought perhaps he had learned his lesson from reactions to the first volume, even though Marcus Brutus continues on a course as a bluff warrior rather than the subtle politician he actually was.

And then there appears in the plot a ragged, impoverished ten-year-old boy, the thieving son of a deceased money-lender, at a time in the story that would have him born about 85 B.C. -- and his name is Octavian. Yep. The future Augustus, great nephew of Julius Caesar and the first real emperor of Rome. Except that the real Octavian was born more than twenty years later and was a member of the lesser nobility. His father was an equestrian who had been governor of Macedonia and his stepfather was the former governor of Syria. He was, in fact, raised by Julius's sister, Julia -- who never appears in the story at all. (Iggulden apparently couldn't be bothered with her.)

Enough is enough. I came close to flinging this volume against the wall in disgust and outrage, and I greatly resent any author who could cause such a reaction in a book-lover like me. I won't be reading the third volume, nor will I bother to attempt Iggulden's later series about Genghis Khan. And I recommend you don't either.