Scan barcode
vegancleopatra's review against another edition
2.0
Overall I was not a fan of the author's writing style. Not only does he awkwardly transition from topic to topic or even paragraph to paragraph, but he also makes it difficult to distinguish which "he" is referencing numerous times. His style was not always clear, often irritating to read and frequently repetitive. His preferred topic was also clearly military strategy, but that was not meant to be the focus of this book.
I will say this, Goldsworthy included more information on Antony than other books including him I have read to date. But his treatment of Cleopatra was frustrating, especially as she is right there in the title but does not come into play very often in the book. When she is mentioned, it is often in a repetitive nature, such as insisting she needed Rome to maintain power but never really going beyond this. He also at one point says that Cleopatra was "uncritical" and lively with regards to Antony. I'm sorry but this just sounds like some cliche male fantasy of what a woman is and not how one actually is. Cleopatra, ruler of a nation, was apparently just a party to be around. Okay. He also does what I hate in NF, which is making assumptions on the people's part. He says things like the relationship was passionate but mostly political, Antony did not intend to never see Octavia again, he did not mean to stay with Cleopatra and so on and so forth. He also addresses Cleopatra and Antony's relationship as being shallow but much of the data put forth says otherwise. Listen, we cannot determine the real realities of other people's relationships even today with Twitter and FB and all that, yet authors continue to believe they can speak for beings from 2,000 years ago. Just stop.
I will say this, Goldsworthy included more information on Antony than other books including him I have read to date. But his treatment of Cleopatra was frustrating, especially as she is right there in the title but does not come into play very often in the book. When she is mentioned, it is often in a repetitive nature, such as insisting she needed Rome to maintain power but never really going beyond this. He also at one point says that Cleopatra was "uncritical" and lively with regards to Antony. I'm sorry but this just sounds like some cliche male fantasy of what a woman is and not how one actually is. Cleopatra, ruler of a nation, was apparently just a party to be around. Okay. He also does what I hate in NF, which is making assumptions on the people's part. He says things like the relationship was passionate but mostly political, Antony did not intend to never see Octavia again, he did not mean to stay with Cleopatra and so on and so forth. He also addresses Cleopatra and Antony's relationship as being shallow but much of the data put forth says otherwise. Listen, we cannot determine the real realities of other people's relationships even today with Twitter and FB and all that, yet authors continue to believe they can speak for beings from 2,000 years ago. Just stop.
aldadelicado's review against another edition
3.0
Os livros deste autor normalmente são muito interessantes e legíveis, mas neste caso acho que ficou um pouco aquém das minhas expectativas. Não sei se foi por ter pouca informação que eu não soubesse já ou por dedicar muito espaço à política romana...
elysianfield's review against another edition
3.0
Book was well written and informative but strayed from the topic too often. It told about general political situation in Rome and stuff. I don't know much about Rome and all the names just got me confused.
More...