Rating: 
Summary: Not Good
Review: This book was poorly written, inaccurate, and boring.
Rating:
Summary: Falls Far Short of its Stated Objectives
Review: This is a one book I really wanted to enjoy. It has all the hallmarks of a classic--a history with Caesar at its center, a unit history from ancient Rome, a fine production job, and pre- and post-production hype. Unfortunately, Dando-Collins' effort, while worthwhile in some respects, falls far short of its stated goals.First, "Caesar's Legion" offers good information on the X legion and others not found elsewhere (yes, there are some mistakes, but everyone makes a few forgivable errors), and its history after the death of Caesar, if thinly presented, is worthwhile. The book includes above-average theater maps (tactical maps would have been very helpful), and the appendices on the naming and numbering of the legions, reenlistment issues, and so forth were very interesting. The discussion of the primary sources was also enlightening, and the glossary was helpful. However, the hype and book title do not mesh with the final written product. The publisher claims this book is both an "unprecedented regimental history" and an "extraordinarily detailed history." It is neither, although it attempts to be both--and therein lies its inherent problem and my sincere disappointment. "Caesar's Legion" is at best a loosely presented general history (with breathtaking gaps in coverage and analysis, and enough leaps of faith to quality as good historical fiction) of Caesar's rise to power and campaigns. It masquerades as a regimental history only because the author weaves in a semi-regular sprinkling of information about the X Legion (and many others, for that matter). Hence the problem: there is not enough scholarly information (and understandably so) on a single legion to boldly shout from the rooftops that this book is a unit history. And, the overall coverage (strategic and tactical) of Caesar's campaigns is so weak and usually shallowly written that it pales in comparison with many other works on Caesar that have recently hit the shelves (Ramon Jimenez's outstanding pair of studies, "Caesar Against the Celts," and "Caesar Against Rome," both of which are head and shoulders better than "Caesar's Legion," leap immediately to mind). The second eyebrow-raiser centers on the author's inability to apply critical reason and analysis to Caesar's (and other modern historians') accounts of his campaigns--especially in Gaul. Numbers and losses are routinely (though not always) accepted at face value. It is painfully obvious that Dando-Collins has never read (or understood) Hans Delbrück, whose first volume in his four-volume epic is still the definitive work on Caesar's campaigns. Delbruck is not even mentioned in the bibliography (nor is Jimenez and many other scholarly works, for that matter). That should have convinced me to place this title back on the shelf. Lastly, the writing ebbs and flows in quality. In places the storytelling is excellent--well paced, well-written, and very interesting. Then, without warning it sags, slows, and swamps itself with flip-flops between the active and passive voice, poorly constructed sentences, and other similar problems. The most irksome technique employed by the author is his habitual use of the word "would," followed by a story line that accepts the author's premise. For example, Caesar "would have had intelligence that Pompey was keeping large amounts of stores . . ." (p. 96). Why not just write "Caesar had intelligence that Pompey . . " I gave up after counting about three dozen similar examples. The manuscript's editor was AWOL on this and similar issues. In addition, although Dando-Collins explains in his introduction why he decided to use modern ranks (Major General, Colonel, and so on), it simply does not work and interrupts the flow of his narrative. I know how difficult it is to write a book (I have written, edited, or ghost-written more than a dozen), and so I rarely comment on another's labors. "Caesar's Legion," however, could have been so much better than it is (the author spent three decades researching Roman legions) that I felt compelled to post this review. It has several redeeming qualities, and the author obviously has enough talent (and apparently, research material) to produce a better history. In the final analysis, "Caesar's Legion" has the feeling of being a horse put together by committee. In other words, its cover shouts full-blooded Arabian! but its words reveal it is, alas, but a camel.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent account of Caesar's 10th Legion
Review: This is an in-depth, well-written history of the inception and battles of Julius Caesar's famous 10th Legion (and others). Filled with a wealth of background information, it's readily accessible to even those that have no previous familiarity with Roman history. The author has sifted through the various works of classical historians and gives the most credible version of events where their accounts differ, but, in fairness, typically includes the contrary versions as well so the reader can make their own decisions. I purchased this book as a source for wargaming information, and it's invaluable in that regard. That so many facts and details are known about these ancient events is often astounding. If you own THE GREAT BATTLES OF CAESAR (computer wargame), this book is a must-read. Unless you plan to read all the writings of Caesar, Tacitus, Plutarch, Seutonius, etc, etc., for yourself, then buy this book. I can't recommend it enough.
Rating:
Summary: Many fabrications, badly researched, not footnoted
Review: This is the second review I have done of this book. After studying all the primary sources he lists I find that this author has made up facts to fill in the gaps of the history of the Tenth Legions (there were more than one). For example he claims a Spanish origin for the Tenth and other legions. There is no primary source that states this, nor is there archaeological or epigraphic evidence that supports this claim. He claims that Caesar raised this and other legions in Spain and that these units fought for Caesar there prior to the Gallic Wars, again no evidence, no support for this claim. He claims that the Tenth Legion Fretensis is the same as Caesar's Tenth (where more scholarly works like Keppies' The Making of the Roman Army point out it is more likely the Tenth Legion Equestris that is the direct lineage unit), again no evidence or support, the author merely states it and assumes the reader will accept and believe it. I cannot recommend this book and agree with the reviewer that stated this author would be better at writing historical fiction, making up facts to fit a framework of actual history. He has made a good start with this book.
Rating:
Summary: Part guesswork, part history
Review: This proves to be a pretty interesting effort but I think it fall bit too short for my taste. I think this book was geared too much toward the general readers. Much of the information seem rather generic in nature and book as a whole, don't say too much. For beginner level Roman military history, its a pretty passable book but for experience reader like myself - and perhaps like some of the previous reviewers, I found the some of the information pretty questionable, unproven or simplistic. There seem to be little source to the facts given and as previously reviewers noted, there were two 10th Legions and there seem to be no fact linking Caesar's 10th to the 10th that took Masada!! There are other books far superior then this, try again.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book that is easy to read!!!
Review: This was a wonderful and easy to read book. What made it so great, is that it read like a novel, but it was real history. What is really great is that even though I knew how the history turned out, I actually looked forward to reading it, and was upset when it was finished. A book for anyone who enjoys ancient history, the Romans, or military tactics.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book that is easy to read!!!
Review: This was a wonderful and easy to read book. What made it so great, is that it read like a novel, but it was real history. What is really great is that even though I knew how the history turned out, I actually looked forward to reading it, and was upset when it was finished. A book for anyone who enjoys ancient history, the Romans, or military tactics.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: Typically I am not a book reading type of a person, a friend told about Caesar's Legion and told me I would love it. I told him it would be a challenge to read the book. I did in fact read the whole book and it took me about a week. It was brilliant from cover to cover it was hard to put down, i will buy a copy for myself. Just to read until I know ever line
Rating: 
Summary: Popular History well written
Review: Well, he certainly is no Parker. And he anachronistically plays the nationality (Spain) over the citizenship (Rome); and beyond that to some organizational questions since other authorities state the legion was first raised in northern Italy. Yet, despite the arguable deficiencies, and there going beyond the 10th to a confusion over the 3rd (the three of them) and a mistake respecting the 12th, Dondo Collins has done a yeoman's job of bringing the history back to life and there with a convincing display of writing. Thoroughly enjoyed my march with the 10th, and found his "would have"s and "probably"s refreshing and educational in themselves; an historian's way of filling in the gaps if you will. He is to be commended for departing from the dry analysis of the academy and embracing the true art of History in the narrative, though we do not believe his work would have suffered if he had stuck with Roman classifications and nomenclature, at least respecting rank. Not the definitive work, but a good read and highly educational for at least the novice.
|
