Pen and Sword unashamedly produce popular history. They do occasionally produce more serious reprints but “Eager for Glory” on the Elder Drusus by Lindsay Powell is not one of those. So why am I glad I read it. First off the Elder Drusus is one of key leaders of the early empire and this book being readable has ensured that exactly who he was has been cemented in my brain.
Given that most of ancient writings that covered Drusus are lost it is surprising that he has found enough material. All we know of the battle near Tridentum against the Rhaetians is a single line of Cassius Dio
For these reasons, then, Augustus first sent against them Drusus, who speedily routed a detachment of them which came to meet him near the Tridentine mountains, and in consequence received the rank of praetor.
Somehow though he pads it out to three pages. He does this by assuming that by the time of the battle the Rhaetians had adopted the customs of the surrounding Gauls. This is plausible but it is also plausible that they would strive to keep their distinctness preserving their old traditions which according to Livy derive from the Etruscans.
However Powell having decided they are Gauls weaves into his account of the battle things we know about how Gauls fought their battles as if he was reporting this particular battle. These are referenced so we know that he gleans these snippets from the whole Keltic world, from Italy to Britain. But there other things that are not referenced – the basic outline of the battle is suspiciously similar to the Battle of the Sambre. Finally there are graphic details that as far as I can see come from his imagination
The foul stench of blood and gore as men opened their bowels in shock and desperation quickly fill the air
When someone is suggested that ancient historians, such as Herodotus, when they could find out no details of a major event, simply filled out the bare bones they had with imagination others are quick to defend the ancients defense. How could anyone accuse such great writers of dishonesty? The counter argument is that we should not expect ancient writers to live up to modern standards of historical research.
But such an argument is not needed. Powell is perfectly aware of modern standards of history yet he pretty much does all the things Herodotus is suspected of. When faced with threadbare sources he makes it his priority to ensure that the deeds of great men do not fade from memory even if those deeds may well not be the actual deeds of those great men.
For such an illustration Powell has my gratitude.