Iran is an ancient country with a fascinating history. When it first rose to prominence almost two and half millennia ago it was the world's first superpower. Its fortunes since then have indeed been varied (that's dry British understatement!) and now the popular image is of a country peopled by fanatics and led by a class of intolerant clerics.

In fact through the centuries Iran has been notable for religious diversity and original spiritual thought. It has given birth to religions both ancient (Zoroastrian) and modern (Baha'i) and has influenced others to a remarkable degree. I suspect that most Christians, Muslims and Jews will be amazed at the extent to which Iranian thought shaped their faiths; even Buddhism - not a religion one associates with Iran - had a place here.

Foltz's text is pitched at just the right level for the interested non-academic reader. It is highly informative and very well written. This is a book I recommend highly to - well to just about everyone who has a religious faith or an interest in religion or history.

Marcus Corvinus, David Wishart's ancient Roman sleuth, is very like Marcus Didius Falco, Lindsay Davis's ancient Roman sleuth, Both are smart, streetwise, not overly impressed by authority, and prone to find themselves carrying out secret commissions for Very Imperial People who don't want to go through regular channels. Each has an intelligent (and beautiful) wife who helps in this. Corvinus is at work a few decades earlier than Falco, firmly in the middle of "I, Claudius" times. He is a minor nobleman of independent means, which gives him a material advantage over up-from-the-slums Falco and more of an entree into the upper reaches of society. But the main difference is in the writing. If Lindsay Davis is like Ellis Peters, Wishart is closer to Raymond Chandler. The story telling is a bit more direct and taut, and the cynicism closer to the surface and more freely expressed. Sometimes it's a bit too much, and one wishes he would rein in the anachronism a bit, amusing though it is. But it all makes for a good read.
In this book Corvinus receives instructions from the deliciously evil and devious Empress Livia to carry out an of-the-record inquiry into the events surrounding the death of Germanicus (prince, general, darling of the army and heir presumptive to the throne) which has generated a major political scandal. Readers of Robert Graves will find here a very different scenario from that offered in "I, Claudius" for the same mystery. That is part of the interest of the book, but it stands on its own merits anyway. Enjoy.

Marcus Corvinus, David Wishart's ancient Roman sleuth, is very like Marcus Didius Falco, Lindsay Davis's ancient Roman sleuth, Both are smart, streetwise, not overly impressed by authority, and prone to find themselves carrying out secret commissions for Very Imperial People who don't want to go through regular channels. Each has an intelligent (and beautiful) wife who helps in this. Corvinus is at work a few decades earlier than Falco, firmly in the middle of "I, Claudius" times. He is a minor nobleman of independent means, which gives him a material advantage over up-from-the-slums Falco and more of an entree into the upper reaches of society. But the main difference is in the writing. If Lindsay Davis is like Ellis Peters, Wishart is closer to Raymond Chandler. The story telling is a bit more direct and taut, and the cynicism closer to the surface and more freely expressed. Sometimes it's a bit too much, and one wishes he would rein in the anachronism a bit, amusing though it is. But it all makes for a good read.
In this book Corvinus receives instructions from the deliciously evil and devious Empress Livia to carry out an of-the-record inquiry into the events surrounding the death of Germanicus (prince, general, darling of the army and heir presumptive to the throne) which has generated a major political scandal. Readers of Robert Graves will find here a very different scenario from that offered in "I, Claudius" for the same mystery. That is part of the interest of the book, but it stands on its own merits anyway. Enjoy.

I'm a Tom Clancy fan. Despite the cardboard characters, the unconvincing dialogue, the political sermonizing, and the fascination with gadgetry (usually of the lethal sort) his book have something. The man can tell a story. When he starts to build to the climax he holds your attention, and the climax is usually riveting. Get past the first, rather slow section, in a Tom Clancy novel and you're probably hooked on the rest of it. But not here.
What went wrong? "The Bear and the Dragon" has all the bad things, and too few of the good ones. It's too long, there are great lengths of text that could have come out, the politics and action are way over the top. And worst of all, the climax is badly written, unconvincing, and lacks the immediacy and mind's-eye descriptiveness of previous books.
Not only that but the characters - most of whom we have met in previous novels - have failed to develop. Some have actually regressed, and that includes the central figure Jack Ryan, whose behaviour at the end is both illogical and (in the worst sense) un-Presidential. And Clancy acts as if he has just discovered the "F" word and uses far, far too much, putting it in the mouths of characters, make and female, quite indiscriminately. The effect is to annoy and the final result rather childish.
The whole book is tired and formulaic. So why even two stars? Well under it all, it is a Tom Clancy. What a pity it didn't receive some firm and good editing on its way to publication.

I'm a Tom Clancy fan. Despite the cardboard characters, the unconvincing dialogue, the political sermonizing, and the fascination with gadgetry (usually of the lethal sort) his book have something. The man can tell a story. When he starts to build to the climax he holds your attention, and the climax is usually riveting. Get past the first, rather slow section, in a Tom Clancy novel and you're probably hooked on the rest of it. But not here.
What went wrong? "The Bear and the Dragon" has all the bad things, and too few of the good ones. It's too long, there are great lengths of text that could have come out, the politics and action are way over the top. And worst of all, the climax is badly written, unconvincing, and lacks the immediacy and mind's-eye descriptiveness of previous books.
Not only that but the characters - most of whom we have met in previous novels - have failed to develop. Some have actually regressed, and that includes the central figure Jack Ryan, whose behaviour at the end is both illogical and (in the worst sense) un-Presidential. And Clancy acts as if he has just discovered the "F" word and uses far, far too much, putting it in the mouths of characters, make and female, quite indiscriminately. The effect is to annoy and the final result rather childish.
The whole book is tired and formulaic. So why even two stars? Well under it all, it is a Tom Clancy. What a pity it didn't receive some firm and good editing on its way to publication.

I'm a Tom Clancy fan. Despite the cardboard characters, the unconvincing dialogue, the political sermonizing, and the fascination with gadgetry (usually of the lethal sort) his books have something. The man can tell a story. When he starts to build to the climax he holds your attention, and the climax is usually riveting. Get past the first, rather slow section, in a Tom Clancy novel and you're probably hooked on the rest of it. But not here.
What went wrong? "The Bear and the Dragon" has all the bad things, and too few of the good ones. It's too long, there are great lengths of text that could have come out, the politics and action are way over the top. And worst of all, the climax is badly written, unconvincing, and lacks the immediacy and mind's-eye descriptiveness of previous books.
Not only that but the characters - most of whom we have met in previous novels - have failed to develop. Some have actually regressed, and that includes the central figure Jack Ryan, whose behaviour at the end is both illogical and (in the worst sense) un-Presidential. And Clancy acts as if he has just discovered the "F" word and uses it far, far too much, putting it in the mouths of characters, make and female, quite indiscriminately. The effect is to annoy and the final result rather childish.
The whole book is tired and formulaic. So why even two stars? Well under it all, it is a Tom Clancy. What a pity it didn't receive some firm and good editing on its way to publication.

Flavius Vespasianus was one of Rome's better, if less glamorous, emperors - not mad, not bad, and not interested in expansionist military adventures. He came to power as the "last general standing" at the end of the short and brutal civil wars that followed the death of Nero, and proved an excellent safe pair of hands to restore the political and financial stability of the Empire. His upbringing had fitted him well for this. Vespasian was born into a noble family that had seen better days and was heading towards poverty (at least by noble standards). He advanced slowly through the "cursus honorum" or "course of honour", the careful laid out and regulated system of promotions and elected offices that led to high political office in Rome. He proved a capable general and a good and intelligent leader of men, and these qualities finally brought him to the throne where, in a sense, his real work began.
This book is a fictionalised biography but it is also a romance, a tale of the enduring love between Vespasian and Antonia Caenis, who became his mistress but whom he could never marry because of the social gulf between them.
An enjoyable, readable, and informative tale that generates real affection for the main characters in the heart of the reader and throws light on a period of Roman history not always given much attention.

Flavius Vespasianus was one of Rome's better, if less glamorous, emperors - not mad, not bad, and not interested in expansionist military adventures. He came to power as the "last general standing" at the end of the short and brutal civil wars that followed the death of Nero, and proved an excellent safe pair of hands to restore the political and financial stability of the Empire. His upbringing had fitted him well for this. Vespasian was born into a noble family that had seen better days and was heading towards poverty (at least by noble standards). He advanced slowly through the "cursus honorum" or "course of honour", the careful laid out and regulated system of promotions and elected offices that led to high political office in Rome. He proved a capable general and a good and intelligent leader of men, and these qualities finally brought him to the throne where, in a sense, his real work began.
This book is a fictionalised biography but it is also a romance, a tale of the enduring love between Vespasian and Antonia Caenis, who became his mistress but whom he could never marry because of the social gulf between them.
An enjoyable, readable, and informative tale that generates real affection for the main characters in the heart of the reader and throws light on a period of Roman history not always given much attention.

Among the many statues of national heroes in London is one of Boudicca, the Queen of the Iceni (a Celtic tribe) who led a major revolt against the Roman occupiers in 61 AD. The event is usually portrayed as some sort of national uprising, which it was not: the Celtic Britons were intensely tribal and many of the victims of the revolt were Britons who belonged to other tribes. But it remains embedded in British national consciousness.
This highly detailed and well-written novel purports to be the memoir of Suetonius Paulinus, the Roman general who finally - and against huge odds, given the military resources at his disposal - crushed the uprising. It gets inside his mind, which is a fascinating, if chilly place. Suetonius is the consummate professional soldier and he succeeds because of his professionalism and his refusal to panic when all seems lost. But he has no respect for the people he has been sent from distant Rome to govern, and as events proceed this develops into a blind hatred for the rebels. This brings him into dispute with his political masters in Rome, who want a quick "reconstruction", and causes his downfall.
The account of life in the Roman army, how it worked (and conquered almost all its foes in the process), and of the mind set of its commanders is absolutely gripping. The author takes you back to a totally different time, a different society, a different way of thinking, and immerses you.
I first read this book some thirty years ago. When it was reprinted I went back to it and think I have gained even more from it now. If you are interested in the ancient world, this is a must-read.

Among the many statues of national heroes in London is one of Boudicca, the Queen of the Iceni (a Celtic tribe) who led a major revolt against the Roman occupiers in 61 AD. The event is usually portrayed as some sort of national uprising, which it was not: the Celtic Britons were intensely tribal and many of the victims of the revolt were Britons who belonged to other tribes. But it remains embedded in British national consciousness.
This highly detailed and well-written novel purports to be the memoir of Suetonius Paulinus, the Roman general who finally - and against huge odds, given the military resources at his disposal - crushed the uprising. It gets inside his mind, which is a fascinating, if chilly place. Suetonius is the consummate professional soldier and he succeeds because of his professionalism and his refusal to panic when all seems lost. But he has no respect for the people he has been sent from distant Rome to govern, and as events proceed this develops into a blind hatred for the rebels. This brings him into dispute with his political masters in Rome, who want a quick "reconstruction", and causes his downfall.
The account of life in the Roman army, how it worked (and conquered almost all its foes in the process), and of the mind set of its commanders is absolutely gripping. The author takes you back to a totally different time, a different society, a different way of thinking, and immerses you.
I first read this book some thirty years ago. When it was reprinted I went back to it and think I have gained even more from it now. If you are interested in the ancient world, this is a must-read.