Historical accuracy of "Masters Of Rome" books

[troymclure]

Hi all, just wondering if any of you history-type-buffs could give me an impression of Colleen McColough's(sp) Masters of Romes series that's "First Man in Rome"; "Caesar" etc. etc. Now i've done a couple of ancient history subjects and done some light reading (read most of plutarch's stuff, skim read a bit of cassius dio stuff like that) but i am wondering just how accurate or inaccurate she is. Now i know it's fiction and she gets artistic license and what not, but so far she seems to have done quite a good job. I mean it is NOT braveheart standard or anything. On the other hand it seems that in the series "Caesar" can do no wrong, and all his enemies are brainless twits.... so any takers? ps. also any good links would be appreciated, here's a couple for anyone else interested...
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/JC/plutarch.north.html
http://heraklia.fws1.com/
http://www.ukans.edu/history....me.html

[Michiel de Ruyter]

With the few things I know of it, she has done a really good job...and is quite close to the historical facts known to us.

As far as Caesar is concerned, from all historical documents (both colored by Caesars own propaganda, and that of his enemies, and later historians), he comes across in the books in the same way he was described at the time... A lucky bastard, very smart, very confident in his own qualities, and convinced of his own right. It almsot seems as if she , especially in the latest two, has taken on a mindset much like Caesars...