No, you get to savor the writing and info slowing and deliberately than when it's read to you.
Julius Caesar, of course.
This is my first reading by S. Langston. He did a great job although he butchered the Latin words.
I loved every bit of it.
This is first ever book of a Roman legion. Tons of great fun and enjoyment.
A transplanted Englishman, I spend my time on biography, history and military books. I appreciate good English and good narration.
My first attempt to read Roman History was disappointing. Any reader who can remember the constantly changing cast of charcaters and associate them with the battles they fought has my admiration. The book recounts battle after battle where legions other than just the 10th legion employed exactly similar tactics with very similar results. The best moments are near the end with the attack on Masada. Repetitive droning, chronological recording of campaign stories. The reader is left amazed at the records the Romans left behind them and the translation work to sift all the detail. I should have read the abridged edition.
Thew reader's voice helped little.
At times, it seems like a book about the life of Ceasar, at times it seems like a book about the Jewish wars. Sometimes it refocuses on the tenth legion, but seems to forget it for substantial periods. The author was very inconsistent and can't seem to make up his mind about what sort of book to write. Sometimes he seems to take stories from ancient historians without question, sometimes he exhibits a degree of skepticism. Maybe he needs a better editor....overall it was interesting but I can't give it high marks.
I was hoping to get a treatise on the Roman legion in Caesar's time but instead I got a historical recount of Caesar's legions' whereabouts. It was fine but I did not have the right expectations.
Avoid any book by this author. They are terrible. They do not give you a historically accurate picture of the legions. Dando-Collins believes he makes his book more readible by using modern military ranks -- but alas he is truly ignorant of Roman History if he things calling a Legate a General or Brigadier General conveys the accuracy of what a Legate's duties were in the Roman Military. He just muddles the picture. I suspect he does not truly understand the actual function of many of these Roman military titles and by using modern equivalents he loses all sense of how the Roman Army was built and how it functioned. It is sad that someone actually published this garbage.