Rating: 
Summary: also disappointed
Review: Put me down as agreeing with other reviewers who found the latter half of this book tedius. Somehow, Ford allowed his narrator to become a monotonous, carping voice, stating and overstating Julian's descent into paganism. In the process, Julian becomes one-sided and uninteresting, yet he's the subject of this book! His first book was better.
Rating: 
Summary: A truly recommended read
Review: Ten thousand reasons made me read this epic. I wasn't disappointed. I played many parts. I was lost in Gaul. I nearly died in Persia. In truth I don't think I would have survived very long in those days. Michael Curtis Ford is a great story teller - could we compare him to a grown up G A Henty. Or perhaps we are just school boys for ever! Read the other reviews for a gist of the story. Better just read the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Where Are The Politics?
Review: The mid-Fourth Century Emperor Julian is definitely one of the more fascinating characters in the later Roman Empire. In a time of growing Christianity and crumbling power, Julian was a strong leader and a devout Hellenistic Pagan. He brought decisive victories against the barbarians invading Gaul (modern-day France) and the Persians - the eternal thorn in the side of Rome, but died in a catastrophic overshooting of his resources in the midst of attacking the Persians at the heart of their Empire.Ford's treatment of Julian and the times in which he lived is both strong and disappointing at the same time. The sense of military tension and the increasing Orientalism of the Imperial Court come through strongly, and Julian's campaigns in Gaul and Persia are well-researched. Nonetheless, there's a very "Middle Ages" sense to the Christian church of timelessness and doctrine - when it should be in the midst of faction purges and self-definition - as well as a close-knit feel of Roman politics that never existed. Admittedly, there's little reason to make "Gods and Legions" another "I, Claudius", but the political life of the novel is boiled down to half a dozen or so memorable characters. To write a novel about the Roman Empire that glosses over politics is like writing a novel of Eighteenth Century America that glosses over the British. It's obvious from his postscript that Ford has done his research - he's thoroughly combed the best sources of the times including Julian's own writings for the sense of power and contradiction that the man's legacy carries even today. However, the contradictions he focuses on loan themselves more to Julian's character than his history. He uses Ammianus Marcellinus (a fourth-century solider who wrote a great deal about Julian from a first-hand perspective) very hazardously, practically quoting directly at some points and totally ignoring him when he wants to give Julian a more mystical, fantastic presence (which can be somewhat odd considering that Ammianus was one of his chief supporters in the historical record). In all, Ford's book makes for a decent novel and a decent military grounding in Julian's accomplishments, but fails in numerous accounts to give as accurate an impression of the time as Ford would have you believe. If you have a casual interest in Roman history, it's a decent way to kill a plane ride, but I'd caution the serious student to take this book with a grain of salt.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome Battle Scenes
Review: This book is fascinating. Curtis Ford brings to life the Roman Empire in all its intrigue and military might, recounting the life and times of Julian the Apostate, a character I had never heard of. I loved the book, in particular because of the battles descrived in it. Curtis Ford just brings them to life, much in the way of Homer and Virgil. The thought crossed my mind of how they'd look in the big screen.
Appart from the battles the main characters are developed very well and the ending leaves a lot of food for thought.
I heavily recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: A remarkable Roman emperor
Review: This intriguing story opens with a bang, our heroes facing charging Persian war elephants! The first half, with Julian as a surprised and aspiring general in Gaul, continues the hot pace. It is fascinating in its scenes and the development of Julian into an inspiring leader. The second half, with Julian soon installed as the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, denying newly established Christianity, and invading Persia, apparently traces the course of his "madness," except that it was evident only when the antagonistic narrator (Caesarius, Julian's companion, a physician and Christian) happens to assert it. This is not a good study in the course of madness; the final madness that leads to the climactic battle of Maranga didn't seem mad to me until the final moments (which trail off in an anticlimax). Ford is a good writer, although somewhat off-putting in his primly grammatical correctness under all circumstances. This story is very easy to read even while jumping rapidly from one episode to another (perhaps due to Ford's sticking close to apparently authentic sources). There are few Latin words or Roman concepts to stumble over--of course we also miss part of the potentially other-worldly feel those would have conveyed. For most of the book the story is an easy flowing combination of Julian's attractive personality, fierce battle, and insightful administration, with no lingering over technical details. The author employs an entertainly wide range of adjectives to enliven his narrative for much of the book. Later the Christian prejudices of Caesarius come to the fore and distance him from Julian, making it harder for us to understand Julian's motives, or for that matter who is really mad. (After all, Europe follows Caesarius' course and plunges into the Dark Ages, while its foe Persia does not.) I thought Ford's story eventually bogs down. It may be in the nature of the subject, however; the all-powerful Emperor is perhaps a less interesting subject than was the struggling young soldier. Ford did not convince me how Julian is mad, until at the end I guess he must be since he finally makes one mistake? I enjoyed the story about the rise of Julian, largely self-made, to the throne. Nevertheless, I don't feel Ford took the further step of creating a convincing view of Julian the Apostate and his motivation for such atavism. No doubt historically accurate in its particulars, yet Ford's story lacks a spark of genius and originality in the writing to make my spirit soar (or seek out another of his books). Caesarius was devout and cheerless in the face of Julian's deeds of pagan ritual, belief and mockery. Such an actively hostile narrator is hardly likely to be empathetic, and help our understanding, rather than mutter about madness (another word for misunderstanding here). He eventually becomes a major miscalculation on Ford's part. Perhaps Caesarius stands for early established Christians as a group, but, because we hardly observe Julian's effects on other Christians, Caesarius comes across as a sore loser. Note the pb is issued on paper that will soon age.
| 
