Overall this was a fine read, which sustained one's interest through 400+ pages. It is, however, laden with numerous typical modern fiction resonances such as the overused themes of freedom and revenge, and the tough warrior woman (Livia; compare Xena) and the friendly black (one-time) gladiator (Batiatus; compare Draba in "Spartacus" and Juba in "Gladiator"). Although it is perhaps more than unfair in general to point out historical mistakes in a work of fiction, especially one that has fantasy elements in it, the author's credentials as a historian and archaeologists are emphasized and he himself makes a note at the end of the novel of his use of various historical sources; therefore I will make a few points about inacuracies and anachronisms. The Emperor Romulus was not taken to Capri but to the villa of Lucullus near Naples (where he may have remained for decades, along with his mother). Arthur (and not his father) was said (in one late source only) to have fought at Mount Badon (which would have occurred around A.D. 500 and not shortly after A.D. 476), defeating Anglo-Saxons (and not Wortigern). Stirrups (p. 65) are first known from China around the third century but did not reach the West until about the eighth century. Pumpkins (pp. 107 and 115-116) are a new world product, though some sort of squash may here be meant (as in the standard translations of Seneca's 'Pumpkinification of Claudius'). And it is difficult to believe that the admiralty in Misenus signaled hours with bells (pp. 115 and 117), something unknown until centuries later (note that this is a standard anachronism in Shakespeare's Roman plays, as in, for instance, 'Antony and Cleopatra' 3.13). Much of these points are no doubt little more than tiresome nitpicking but I would have been more satisfied if the author had been able to meld what is found of Romulus in the sources with what is found of Arthur in the sources in a more convincing manner.