/lit/ - Literature

>>6843537
Historians probably don't accept him as any such thing. He's made up quite a lot, but it all seems rather plausible. Don't forget to check out the sequel.

>Also, how much of it is based on factual evidence?

I always thought Graves took the broad strokes that we know from History, and then filled in the holes that we don't know with fiction.

Graves was a bro. if you ever wondered why people have such divided opinions over the worth of the first world war, read Graves' autobiography "Goodbye to all that". he fought in the trenches and survived.

That's a pretty good book, I liked that one. My only gripe is anglicizing the old names for things, like "France" for "Gaul" It feels more authentic with the old Latin names and only plebs wouldn't know most of them.

>>6843690

Scripturum fuisse, si vellet totum vera dici Latine.

(if he wanted it to be authentic he would have written the whole thing in Latin.)

If you like it, try reading Tacitus' Histories and Annals next. Both are pretty short and easy to read. You'll recognise a LOT of stuff, basically the skeleton of the narrative, and Tacitus' cynical, acerbic style was a direct influence. Then you could read Suetonius, which is also obviously an inspiration for salacious imperial gossip, and which Graves also did a bretty good translation of. Aside from a few other sources, relatively minor (or very minor) by comparison, those are just about our best accounts, so you'll know which parts Graves embellished and invented, and which parts are true. The latter can be pretty surprising sometimes.

I'd also highly recommend Graves' Count Belisarius, which is just as well-liked, and King Jesus if you are into that sort of thing.