Customer Reviews

Mark Antony's Heroes: How the Third Gallica Legion Saved an Apostle and Created an Emperor

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I realize that Dando-Collins is writing his series for the non-specialist, but his use of modern place names and modern equivalencies for Roman army terms is condescending and off-putting. If a non-specialist cares enough to read the work, he won't be stymied by Roman terms and specialists, though I speak only for myself, find the equivalencies annoying at best and misleading at worst. Tribune, legate, cohort, vexillation, et al. are tems that can certainly be learned by anyone, especially if a glossary is provided. Otherwise, Dando-Collins is a good storyteller and I thoroughly enjoy his chronological histories of the legions, told one legion at a time.

This is the first book by Dando-Collins I have read, and I will not read another. It was apparently written for popular appeal, particularly with it's emphasis on how a legion saved Paul of Tarsus. That said, it was a pleasant read for an evening or two, depending upon one's reading speed. He fairly accurately depicts life in a legion and the events covered by his book. I would recommend it to someone who is not a scholar in Roman History.

The title is misleading in that the 3rd Gallica Legion was formed by Pompey in Gaul about 65 BCE, fought for Pompey against Caesar, surrendered to Caesar and was disbanded. The Legion was re-constituted by Caesar in 49 BCE (legionnaires served for 16 years) again with Gauls, fought at Munda for Caesar, and following Caesar's assassination, transferred its allegience to Mark Antony, It took part in Antony's invasion of Parthia in 36 BCE, was reconstituted again in 33 BCE with Syrian enlistees, then deserted Antony's cause for Octavian in 31 BCE. The enlistment periods were lengthened to 20 years, and by 58 CE, had been refilled with new enlistees four more times from Syria. This was when the events with Paul took place, and then after a further refilling, the Legion declared for Vespasian in 69 CE and materially aided him in achieving the throne by defeating Vitellius's troops. So why did the Author choose the emphasis on Mark Antony? One can only surmise it was due to Antony's name being familiar to the possible purchasers of the book.

The author's use of modern place name and modern terms for Roman ranks was really jarring. Calling Mucianus a Field-Marshal was really too much. A simple chart of ranks and their modern equivalents (if any) was all that was necessary. One could argue that a Legion was more akin to a modern Division (albeit much smaller) than a regiment, but such things are hardly important once the reader accepts the size, role and resources of the ancient formations. The author really stretched my credulity by using terms like lieutenant, captain, major, colonel, etc. Plus, he should know that there is no field-marshal rank in the American military. Also, using modern terms like "under fire" from arrows, javelins, slinger bolts, etc, misrepresent ancient reality. Treating modern readers like children who would be unable to understand any military terms other than those in use today (particularly when the reader is likely not to have served in the military) was insulting to say the least.

A final criticism was the author's naming convention. When he mentioned that joint emperors Balbinus and Maximus were killed by the Praetorian Guard (why not say Palace Guard?) in 238, I crossed out Maximus in my book and wrote "Pupienus." Unsure as to why the author said "Maximus", either the son of Maximinus Thrax, Caesar from 235-238, or Maximus Magnus, emperor from 383-388, I checked the full name of Pupienus. It was Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus, known to us as Pupienus. Calling Pupienus "Maximus" would be like calling Marcus Aurelius "Verus" since his full name was Marcus Aelius Aurelius Verus. And, of course, his co-emperor was Lucius Verus, full name Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus. So my recommendation to the author is to stick to Roman terms and classical naming conventions.

The author's lists of sources was excellent, although I would have been somewhat more critical of Cassius Dio (Dio Cassius). As can be seen from the list, ancient sources are few and have to be supplemented with numismatic and archeological evidence. His modern bibliography was equally good, but for readers in the dark about Roman individuals of importance I would recommend Diana Browder's "Who Was Who In The Roman World."

Witness Roman history against a landscape of facts, ancient imagery, personalities, passions, and human resolve, in Mark Antony's Heroes. It is vintage Dando-Collins, in that one feels immersed in the fascinating world of antiquity. You will discover the true drama of stories and passions that the schoolbooks dare not reveal. There is suspense, and intriguing looks at this most interesting empire and its famous 3rd Gallica Legion. Mark Antony's story is brought into a whole new light relative to the popular history, as is Paul the apostle's story, and the fiery passion of the Jewish people. Here too you will read about how the 3rd Gallica Legion brought both King Herod and Vespasian to the throne, among other worthy exploits. I highly recommend this book.

the author does a good job of bringing facts together to shape an interesting storyline that informs as well as sparks a curiosity to dig further into the history of the Roman Legions.

Overall, Dando-Collin's biography of the Legio III Gallica is not a disappointment. With relative accuracy he traces the Legion's role in Roman history from its foundation (raised by Julius Caesar from Gauls in the 40's BC) to its decisive role in the Battle of Second Cremona, in which it helped to secure victory for Vespasian in the Roman Civil War. The book is fairly light reading and is well-written.

There are a few minor things I disagree with. One is that the author assumes this had to have been the Roman Legion that saved Saint Paul from an angry Jewish mob after his conversion to Christianity. He assumes this on the grounds that he believes it was the only legion stationed in Judaea at the time (and is thus either ignoring or simply not aware of the Legio X Fretensis - which was stationed in Jerusalem for most or all of the 1st and 2nd Centuries). He also claims that he believes that the Book of Acts would suggest that the Roman soldiers involved in Paul's rescue were legionaries, not auxiliaries, though he gives no evidence for why he believes this. It was the auxiliary regiments, however, that got the dirtier jobs that the Roman soldiers of the Bible are known for - quelling riots, executing criminals, and in general playing the role of our modern policemen and firemen. The Third Gallic Legion would have spent more time watching the Parthians and keeping pesky Arab raiders out of the province.

Another thing about this author's books in general that I do not appreciate is how he equates ranks in the Roman army to those in modern western armies (e.g. `general' in place of legate, and `colonel' in place of tribune). He also alternates between calling rank-and-file soldiers `legionaries' and `privates' though this doesn't irk me as much as both terms (legionarius and privatus) were used by the Romans. I personally feel that the language and culture of ancient peoples should not be disregarded to make reading about them more palatable for modern people - this will not educate but only bring about further ignorance. It is my opinion that he does our noble Roman predecessors a disservice by ignoring the proper titles of their military men.

Overall, though, this is a decent book and I am not going to harshly criticize it - I will simply warn you not to take all of the author's opinions as historical truth, and not to let his books be a primary source for you on the Roman Army.

Stephen Dando-Collins writes very well, you get the history, facts I hadn't read before and real research without a million footnotes to distract from the tale. I have read his whole series on the legions. Excellent