I am more than a little surprised that this book didn't receive a better overall rating. While I think that Simon Scarrow's series is more fun (without taking away from the drama) this book may be more complete; the characters (Briton as well as Roman) , the historical settings, perspectives (again, you can can see both sides of the coin - motives, atrocities and revenge - Briton and Roman), battles and the emotional impact of these battles. This was as well written a book that I have read. Maybe it is because I have been reading so many Cornwell books lately, but this novel brings to mind a wonderful mixture of Cornwell and Stephen Pressfield's Gates of Fire; to me there can be no higher praise. I am eagerly moving on to the next book in the series. It feels somewhat harsh giving this just two out of five as that is a little low on how I feel about the book but I'm basing this review squarely on the annotations for each star. Hopefully for the reasons listed below I will be able to articulate my general feeling of this book.Having felt a visible upsurge in quality as I read through Douglas Jackson's previous two books, elephant and all (though it and Rufus, her handler, appearing less in Claudius was undeniably an improvement), I had a fairly good vibe I was going to enjoy this.When I started reading it however, I realised there was something distinctly different about this book, and general setup, than Jackson's previous books.In 'Claudius' there was a tangible sense of Jackson truly being in his element covering the Roman conquest of Britain, so you'd think that this book, set around fifteen years later mostly around the site of Claudius' triumph would be equally resplendent and appealing.For me, it wasn't. It felt almost as if it had been written by an entirely different author with none of the instant appeal I'd got while reading Claudius. At first this difference was a little perplexing but that soon mutated into a notable amount of apathy if I'm honest.The lead character, Gaius Valerius Varrens to give him his full name, seems like a fairly average token Roman - albeit one remarkably less cocksure and swaggering than the majority of tribunes you get in historical fiction, though that only serves to make him seem even more bland and inconsequential than the story would later pan out to make him appear. There's little to make me particularly care about Varrens as he seems to spend most of the book cruising from one particularly dull rumination to another while obsessing every so often about a good looking Briton.I would estimate that this lack of bravado and greater fallibility is supposed to endear us more to the character but to be honest, he just feels like one of those bit-part Romans you get in a Simon Scarrow book to pad in between the lead characters' chapters.The whispered burgeoning threat of open rebellion against Rome by the Britons seems woefully underplayed and doesn't have the palpable sense of danger, menace or potency that you feel in say Anthony Riches' 'Empire' series set around the rebellion of the Northern tribes. Even a rudimentary knowledge of history will tell you that it eventually does fan out into something but for the majority of the book the probably unintentional sensation from the book is that such a conspiracy would be drowned in the first downpour of autumn rather than hold any great threat.The majority of the characters are so relatively non-descript and interchangable that it's pretty hard to find yourself caring about what happens to any of them beyond seeing that Crespo, our hero's principal antagonist, gets his just rewards with the caress of the sharp point of a blade. Even that in itself though has echoes of being decidedly lightweight in comparison to, for want of not mentioning Anthony Riches' yet again, the tangible acrimony between 'Empire's Marcus Valerius Aquila (coincidental they have the same paternal name?) and his antagonist Perennis.Overall, while it's not so poorly written to be able to give that as an excuse not to read it, I'd have to say this is about as dull a Roman novel (excluding murder mysteries) that I've read so far and brings out inevitable comparisons with what could have been.I did have ideas of reading the follow-up books to this opening part of Jackson's series but frankly, it's becoming somewhat of a chore keeping going through this opener as it feels like I've been waiting almost three hundred pages for anything truly memorable to happen.When you factor in that Claudius, and to a certain extent even with it's discombobulated flaws Caligula, both grew on the reader with every page, it only serves to point out just how resilient your apathy can be towards this book. Claudius was truly one of my favourite books I've read all year, if not of my favourite Roman books full-stop. Hero Of Rome on the other hand just isn't in the same ballpark. Or if it is, it's playing soccer on a baseball diamond.So hopefully for the reasons outlined above, you'll understand why I feel harsh giving it only a two out of five but can't quite compel myself to give it a three and pretend 'I liked it'.It does pick up a little toward the end but doesn't do enough to dispell the tedium already burrowed deep under the skin.
What do You think about Hero Of Rome (2010)?
well written tale. Enjoyable characters and good action.
—LIana
interesting, not my favorite, but not too bad
—francenne
Standard Roman history fiction, military
—Kate
Great series start. Wonderful narration.
—ntphuong2603
