Customer Reviews

Ship of Rome (Masters of the Sea)

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

 

 

I don't usually care so much about accuracy in a historical novel as long as the history is reasonable and the story is good. But Ship of Rome fails the accuracy test spectacularly, butchering both the broad outline of the 1st Punic War and the details.

1) The first and biggest problem is that the very premise of the novel is all wrong. In the book, the Roman legions on Sicily would wither and die as a result of a naval blockade by Carthage. This forms the basis of the entire book. However, ancient navies of the time couldn't blockade a single city much less an entire island like Sicily. This is because ancient fleets had to put to shore every night to camp. They couldn't carry food/water for their crews. In order to maintain a blockade a fleet would have to have an anchorage nearby (which Carthage did not have near Messana, the Roman port in Sicily) and even then could not spend enough time on the water to make a good blockade. Prior to the Romans building a fleet they took armies into and out of Sicily at will, making the trip from Rhegium to Messana w/o interference. The real reason Rome needed a fleet was to conquer the Sicilian port cities which remained under Carthaginian control because they could not be successfully besieged due to their ability to be supplied by sea indefinitely (which they were later able to do anyway despite Roman naval efforts). Carthage could hold out forever in theses cities, and reconquer the island when the Romans left.

2) So in the book why doesn't Carthage just blockade Messana? Well, Stack obviously considered this, so he made the only Roman port Brolium and makes little mention of Messana. Brolium apparently is like a secret port. Carthage doesn't know that Brolium is the Roman port. This is highly contrived. The Roman port in Sicily was Messana. Where did Brolium come from? It's not mentioned in any account of the war.

3) He has numbered Roman legions, as if they are permanent military organizations. At this time, they were citizen levies, raised for a specific purpose, then disbanded. Probably to accommodate his clichéd "band of brothers" storyline with the main characters.

4) Rome's treaty with Syracuse is treated as a kind of non-aggression pact. He has a Roman army stationed near Syracusan territory to keep Syracuse in check. In fact, Syracuse had become a loyal ally of Rome and was bound by treaty to come to Rome's aid whenever needed. This is exactly what Syracuse did during the Siege of Agrigentum by supplying the Roman armies when their supply source had been captured by Carthage. (Another example of how Rome was not dependent on Italy to supply its armies. Why would it be? Rome had allies among the entire interior of the island as well as Syracuse--it was hardly isolated in the middle of enemy territory.)

5) Characterizations are too broad and cliché. Gisco is cartooniishly evil. Scipio is cartoonishly haughty. Atticus is cartoonishly honorable. Etc, Etc. Gisco actually comes off like Blackbeard the pirate.

6) Has the appearance of a Carthaginian fleet off northern Sicily come as some kind of revelation to the Romans, as if they didn't know Carthage had a fleet. This news is greeted as something ominous and momentous when in fact in reality Carthage had already been raiding the coast of Italy prior to the time of this book.

7) Stack says repeatedly that the rowers on board the ships were chained slaves. Neither side used slaves as rowers.

All of this stuff is easily discovered by reading ANY book on the subject. I didn't come to know these things through a lifetime of study. I read a single book on the subject 15 years ago. To Stack's credit, he tells a good story, but the obvious lack of research makes the book of little value to the reader of historical fiction.

During the course of the First Punic War, a Roman galley (under the command of a Greek) is surprised to encounter a large Carthaginian fleet, about to blockade the Roman supply base/port in Sicily, thereby stranding two legions and threatening to not only starve them into submission but strike a severe blow to Rome's entire Sicilian campaign. During the course of the ensuing action, Atticus the captain and Septimus the marine commander find themselves involved in multiple battles at sea, with egotistical or incompetant commanders of both sides; are involved in the design and building of Rome's first serious fleet; and eventually save the day (and campaign) for Rome.

On the positive side, Stack has constructed an interesting (if historically fanciful) story, and can write pretty well; this reads better than a first novel of this genre often does. His descriptions of the naval battles are very well done, the sights and sounds and smells of the ancient locations, including Rome, are seemingly spot-on, and one gets a good feel for the settings and locations of the story; it does not read like a couple of 21st century people transplanted in time (Harold and Kumar in Sicily) as too much pulp historical fiction does. He could work a little on writing better love-interest material, but that is not especially the focus of the book.

On the not-so-positive side, for all the effort to get things historically right in his story, Stack has altered (or blown) a lot of the actual well-known historical facts. In an author's note he gives reasons for some of these, for narrative reasons (it might be more interesting to read of Hamilcar Barca than Hamilcar Unknown); but there are plenty of details (eg the entire premise of a long-term naval blockade of an apparently wholly invented port) that rankle with this reader. The characters are wooden and essentially one-dimensional, the bad as well as the good. The reader should not think he is learning much about the First Punic War by reading this book.

One the whole, however, if one is willing to discount the multiple historical problems and read the book for the atmosphere and the action, it is an enjoyable way of spending a few hours immersed in ancient naval warfare.

Wish I could have my money back. Feel cheated. Sooooo bad. Love Scarrow Sharpe and many others and am quite tolarent of most first attempts but how this book got published I will never know.

I find that the first line of the amazon discription is completely false. Would be supportive of a first novel as it often gets better as the series progresses but this author is extremely lazy and has done no research.

This a money spinner to catch out people in book stores who can only make a decision from what they see on the back of the book and are interested in the Roman era.

As I said am supportive usually but this lad has taken the mickey out of people. He must have no pride in his work as allowing this to be published is embarrasing.

When I say there was no research done I mean none. Doubt this lad has even read a hist fiction book on rome let alone researching anything. Add to this that his charachters are something a ten year old would create and I hope you get the picture.

This book is fun, simple entertaiment, but very bad from an historical accuracy perspective. The story is set in 260BC when Rome was still young, and yet sometimes it seems set 2 centuries later with an army that would not be created until the Marian reform.

The author wanted to bring Hollywood's Rome (where there must always be a gladiator in the story, Rome ruled by a decadent senate, with wonderful and luxuriant villas made of marble) with a fun story set at the time of the first Punic war and he succeeded in that. Unfortunately more research would have allowed him to bring his readers in the early days of the Republic, a place new and very much untouched by other authors. In a world where stories on late republic, early imperial Rome are a dime a dozen, he lost an opportunity to stand out of the crowd.

Interesting view of the Roman Republic and early steps in its rise to dominance. We do tend to forget that Rome was not always the all powerful entity in the ancient Mediterranean which was not always Mare Nostrum.

Delenda est Carthago
Marcus Porcius Cato

In the last few months I have finished reading over ten novels situated in ancient Rome. Of those ten or so novels, three were by Rosemary Sutcliff and two by Alfred Duggan. Additionally, over the last fifty years I have read scores of historical novels and throughout that time I have devised a test: either (1) the novel is simply an action adventure (or perhaps romance or political thriller)with the characters dressed as Ancient Romans or (2) it is truly a historical novel, a novel that takes us to that specific time, teaches us something we did not know, and possesses a serious theme and purpose. Those novels that fall within the first category can be quite entertaining like a good movie; however, those that fall in the second category transcend the genre to become literature, especially if they are written with an eye on the first category. The movie Gladiator falls within the first category; I, Claudius is firmly situated in the second. John Stack's Ship of Rome, a novel set within the historical period of the first Punic war successfully chronicles the naval battles that occurred and Rome's emergence as a mighty sea power. It falls within the first category but clearly satisfies in its execution. The story is accurate; the characters well-rounded and believable.

Part of the problem for me is that novels that fall within the first category suffer from what I call anachronism of modernism. Even if the author does everything he or she possibly can do to fall in the second category, he or she sometimes fails because of the point of view or the method in which he or she tells the story. Primarily, the current crop of historical novelists want to follow the Bernard Cornwall model, which is not unlike Scott and Cooper of the 19th century, or O'Brien of the 20th. There is a formula and a heavily plotted story. Survival of the main characters is a given because they must live to fight another day and appear in the next installment. Consequentially, this formula is satisfying and safe. As I write this I can think of least twenty works that fall easily into the category; they usually include two characters--one patrician, the other a commoner-- fighting the good fight in some foreign war, a series of near death episodes, shady leaders and evil machinations by both friend and foe. The fact is that this formula works. From Sherlock Holmes to Batman, it succeeds in pulp, in comics and in movies. Novels that do not fit the first category are rarer and usually more difficult to read; they are idiosyncratic for the most part and based on character or theme. Nevertheless, let me be clear, I like books that fit both categories. I enjoy the novels of Scarrow and Cornwell just as much I like the novels that fall in category two. However, even within the categories some novels satisfy more than others as historical novels. John Stack's "Ship of Rome" is one of those novels. Even though he clearly falls in line behind Cornwall, Scarrow, and Sidebottom, for some reason I found his work more grounded, perhaps more realistic and less like cinema. And, even though, he employs several anachronisms of modernism, including the patrician/commoner duo, the romantic trio, and the devious senators, I found myself believing I was reading about early Rome. In other words I suspended disbelief and found myself engrossed in the novel, caring about the characters.

I believe Stack pulled this novel off by situating the action firmly within the facts of the times. Most of the characters are actually historical characters doing and saying what they actually did and said at the time. The battle scenes are carefully drawn and resolve themselves as the Roman historians said they occurred. The descriptions of ships, cities, and the Senate are precise and detailed; and although it is a technique of modernism, Stack's use of multiple points of views provides the reader a 360 degree view of the Punic war. Additionally, his main characters, Atticus, the Greek sea captain, and Septimus, the Roman Centurion, are well drawn and sympathetic. Conflict is rampant in the book on several levels: man against nature--the Romans are new to naval warfare and the sea itself is a daunting place; man against man--the characters struggle against one another, Rome wars against Carthage, Legion battles Navy, Senators deceive Senator, patricians detest nouveau riche; and man against himself--Atticus struggles to be a Roman and overcome his inferiority complex, while Septimus struggles against his prejudice of barbarians, more specifically, the Greek, Atticus.

All in all, "Ship of Rome" was a quick, exciting read; and although it contains many anachronisms of modernism, including the fact that it is the first book of a series, I found it one of the better books in the first category. Stack is a worthy newcomer to the Scarrow/Sidebottom Roman historical novel genre race.

Ship of Rome, knocked my socks off. John Stack has exceeded my expectations for a new author writing in the genre similar to Patrick O'Brien, Bernard Cornwell, Edwin Thomas, Michael Curtis Ford and Steven Pressfield. The time is the early Punic Wars where Rome battles against Carthage. Most of the story takes place on the high seas with riveting edge-of-your seat action and suspense as the two enemies of war slaughter for the win on the sleek and powerful trireme ships manned by hungry strong slaves being whipped into action. Two tyrannical egotistical ship captains are more than eager to ram, and sink each others fleet of warships causing nothing but death and destruction. The battle scenes and military strategies mixed with an incredible ability to put human feeling and emotion into the personalities of the characters on both sides of good and evil, showed great new writing skill. To input political intrigue amongst the senators in the forum of ancient Rome, added with a little romance and background history of Rome and Carthage, puts John Stack high on my list for buying the next installment of this new series called Master of the Seas. I read this book in one day, I thought it was so exciting and well written, and actually found it to be better than some of the other authors in this category of historical fiction. This is sort of a Ben Hur meets Gladiator story that any serious historical fiction reader will devour quickly and highly enjoy. Bravo and more please!

this book is the first in a series. I enjoyed it. Looking forward to reading more. I enjoyed seeing the historical army at sea, for a change.

An enjoyable read set in the time when the Carthaginian empire had navel superiority over the Romans.

Greek Atticus is a captain of a ship in Rome's small coastal fleet and Roman warrior Septimus leads a small group of marines based on the ship.

Much politics abound as the Romans try to build a fleet capable of challenging the Carthaginians and which can break a blockade of trapped Roman soldiers on Sicily.

There are many books like this out there at the moment, Simon Scarrow being a main contributor to a growing area of fiction, but this fits in well. Those that like Cornwall's stuff or Scarrow or just a sea based adventure, will enjoy this. Some minor quibbles about a love interest, but otherwise I am looking forward to the next one in the series...