39 of 44 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
The Death of Caesar as reported by a British Tabloid., March 19, 2010
This review is from: The Ides: Caesar's Murder and the War for Rome (Hardcover)
Stephen Dando-Collins' "The Ides" reminds me of the manner in which British newspapers' report their stories through the use of outrageous headlines that have little to do with the body of the story, which, invariably upon reading, reveals the author has little background in what he is reporting and has twisted matters out of context to sensationalize.
That the author has only a superficial knowledge of Rome, its society, politics and people at the end of the republic which he apparently gleaned from skimming over the translated works of several historians of Rome is apparent to anyone who has done any in-depth reading about Caesar and the fall of the republic. There are a number of errors and assertions by the author that lead one to that conclusion. To cite several:
1. In a rather smarmy opening sentence in the introduction, Dando-Collins states that much that has been written about Caesar by modern writers is "twaddle. Not even his name has come down to us correctly. His full name was Gaius Iulius Caesar, and he was referred to as Gaius by Romans..." I don't know where the author got his education, but anyone even remotely familiar with Caesar knows his full name. But, Dando-Collins can't leave it there and asserts that Romans would have referred to him as "Gaius." To coin a word, twaddle. Caesar was known to his contemporaries as "Caesar." Given the paucity of praenomen used by the Romans, should anyone holler out "Gaius" in the Roman Forum he would be answered by a resounding chorus of "here." Caesar would probably only have been referred to by his first name by his close family and intimate friends, or lovers. In Fact, Caesar preferred being referred to by his cognomen, the meaning of which has not been established. Contemporary writers referred to him as "Gaius Caesar."
2. Dando-Collins states in several passages, to include a description of Caesar's activities on the day of his assasination, that Caesar lived in the "Regia", as Pontifex Maximus. In fact, Caesar lived in the "Domus Publica'" a mansion given to the Pontifex Maximus to reside in as one of the privileges of being Pontifex Maximus. It was located right next to the Regia, which was used as an office by the Pontifex Maximus and the other pontifices.
3. In a discussion concerning Caesar's apparent refusal to accept a crown, Dando-Collins comes up with this howler: "Subtle political manuvering such as this would have bored Caesar. He was a soldier at heart, and accustomed to decisive action..." Once again Dando-Collins demonstrates his ignorance of Caesar and the history of the late republic. Caesar was the consumate politician and had only been able to achieve military command through the political system. He prided himself on having achieved power legally through the cursus honorum (a sequential order of offices in the Roman republic) unlike some of his contemporaries such as Pompey, who had violated it repeatedly. Caesar always won his elections; bribery was a mainstay of all elections and practiced by almost all candidates. In fact, some candidates couldn't bribe the electorate into voting for them. Our concept of bribery and the Roman concept are entirely different. There was nothing particularly shameful for a Roman to accept a bribe; the shame was incurred by one who was bought and didn't deliver. That was real shame.
4. Publius Clodius was responsible for the sacrilege of intruding on the "Bona Dea", not the Matronalia in December not March and desecrating it. The Bona Dea was the Roman goddess of virginity and fertlity and was honored by some obscure rights which could only be practiced and attended by women. The rites were conducted annually by the wife of the senior magistrate in Rome and the Vestal Virgins. An intrusion by a male into the rites was, by Roman standards, an unbelievable affront. Any sacrilige committed had the additional burden of uniting all of the women of Rome, in horror. In addition, there is not a shred of historical evidence in any source that Clodius seduced Caesar's wife and Dando-Collins' flat declarative statement that he did is, frankly, twaddle.
It would serve no purpose to go on in this manner and I would like to get to Dando-Collins' views on Caesar's Murder.
A dread of one-man rule(regnum)permeated the Roman aristocracy. There were no political parties in Rome amongst the senators; there were only friendships and enmity. These relationships mattered and were the driving forces behind various actions. Caesar's title of "Dictator for Life" really sent tremors throughout the senatorial class - "The Conscript Fathers"; for it cut them off permanently from the offices that they had striven to obtain their whole life. A way of life - the pursuit of honor, prestige, dignitas and auctoritas, the ambition of becoming "First Man of Rome" had been snuffed out. The assassination of the Dictator, they thought wrongfully, would restore their dreams and ambitions and the old republic. Caesar knew the old republic was gone forever and he attempted a number of things to try and replace it, without success. We will never know if Caesar, in his frustration at the end, wanted to be king or was just sick and tired of his enemies. His upcoming campaign to revenge the defeat of his old friend Crassus by the Parthians can be seen as his way of escaping his political problems, and of just throwing up his hands and abandoning an intractable and unsolvable political problem. Caesar had rejected using Sulla's "proscriptions" and its wholesale murder of a susbtantial portion of the ruling class; he replaced it with a policy of clemency. Perhaps Caesar remembered those days when he was a teeenager, blood flowed through the streets of Rome as a result of the "proscriptions" and he had to flee for his life into the swamps to escape Sulla and his licenses murderers. Perhaps the trauma still lingered and he vowed he would and could not solve his problem through wholesale slaughter. Yet, Sulla was able to give up his dictatorship, retire to the country, live a life of utter dissipation and die peacefully. And Caesar's adopted Son and Marcus Antonious, in the end, decided to use "proscriptions" to eliminate their enemies and steal their fortunes.
One final comment. Dando-Collins virtually ignores the actions of Decimus Brutus in the plotting of the assasination. Outside of Marcus Junius Brutus, he may have been the most important conspirator.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Can A Book Be Scholarly and Thrilling?, March 15, 2010
This review is from: The Ides: Caesar's Murder and the War for Rome (Hardcover)
Quite simply, Yes! Dando-Collins(DC) scholarly work reads like a novel. If history was presented like this, there would be no drop-outs. The political machinations of the time of Caesar's death are fascinating and DC lays it out in wonderful detail. His variety of sources give differing accounts and seemingly leaves it up to you to decide and ponder whether Cesar's murder was justified. The book however is not without fault.
DC's bias against Caesar is evident in many passages but one comes to mind where he writes "The most striking thing about the more than sixty assassins is that in putting their lives on the line to join the conspiracy, none asked for anything..." (pg.229). Oh really? He constantly portrays the assassins as the light of democracy and republicanism and Brutus as nothing but "virtuous and noble". He makes the same mistake of many other historians and judges Caesar from the perspective of 21st Century morals and mores. 'By any definition, Cesar was a tyrant' DC tells us, but what he fails to tell you is that the Senators of the Republic were all out to enrich themselves at the expense of the conquered peoples. Caesar was a threat to their way of life and their riches due to his reforms and the big tent of opening up the citizenship of Rome to lesser barbarians. Please DC don't think for one minute they did it for the good of the Republic. Nor should your readers.
Democracy as worshiped by Cicero, a leading Liberator simpatico, as a government "of the people, by the people" meant government by the unjustly enriched Senators. Caesar was a threat to the Republican Senate and the old way but it was more corrupt than a benevolent ruler/king/dictator could ever be. DC compares Caesar to Sulla and wonders why he couldn't just relinquish the power after he accomplished what he set out to do just like Sulla did when he eventually retired and died of old age. Sulla could afford to do that because he ruthlessly killed all his enemies when Caesar magnanimously, or foolishly pardoned his.
In the end, DC apparently chalks the murder up to Caesar's mental problems and therefore he must have brought it onto himself? A bizarre justification for murder with no historical basis and detracts from an otherwise excellent book. Despite these issues it is a wonderful book to read and deserves 5 stars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A disappointing, badly researched book, March 24, 2010
This review is from: The Ides: Caesar's Murder and the War for Rome (Hardcover)
I liked Dando Collins' books on the legions. They were informative and vivacious and for once they didn't paint the Romans as unfeeling killing machines.
'The Blood of the Caesars' had such a zany theory on Germanicus' murder to leave me speechless and endlessy amused. It was far beyond everything Agatha Christie could have hoped to pull on her readers. Also, utterly unbelievable. But very amusing.
So I hoped that 'The Ides of March' could top the previous book's zaniness. It doesn't. It's a rather boring account of Caesar's assassination, with no new insight.
Suddenly the author has taken a dislike for the Dictator after several books where he praised him, while the 'Liberators' are painted as nice, high principled people. They weren't, really. The idea that they weren't interested or corrupted or ambitious is laughable - and this includes the saintly Brutus, he of the hysterical wife. Everyone - included the hysterical wife - is strictly mono-dimensional: there's no sense that those people had a personal history before, let's say, a week before the murder.
A previous commenter has pointed out historical mistakes. I must add that there's evidence that the author is not familiar with Latin at all. What should a reader think when IIviri (duumviri, a magistracy of two) is written Ilviri? Or 'carmen' becomes 'carme'? Or 'depositio' becomes 'deposito'? What were the editors doing here?
In short it's a big disappointment. The book is not accurate, is not balanced, and isn't entertaining either.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
