The Last King

I recently reread Ford's The Ten Thousand, a story based on Xenophon's writings and I was sufficiently taken by this book to try one of Ford's more recent works. All other books by Ford are set in Roman antiquity so I picked the one which deals with a part of Roman history I am less than familiar with. The Last King follows the career of King Mithridates VI of Pontus (132-63 BC). There is quite a bit of contemporary literature on Mithridates but most of it is Roman so the historical picture is less than clear. Ford manages to craft and engaging story but it is clear the one sided view of this king in the historical records posed a challenged to the author. One he doesn't always successfully overcome.

Asia Minor in the first century BC. Rome is still a republic but rapidly expanding eastwards. Several nations in Asia Minor are already under Roman rule and in Pontus Roman influence is clearly noticeable. When Mithridates takes the throne at the age of 21 a lifelong struggle begins to keep his kingdom out of Roman hands. A struggle that would earn him a reputation as Rome's most implacable enemies. It would take forty years and three major wars, fought by three of the most prominent generals of the Roman Republic, Sulla, Lucullus and Pompeuis, to finally subdue him.

Like The Ten Thousand, the story is told from the point of view of someone near power, but not in power. In this case the illegitimate son of Mithridates, Pharnaces II. History seems to be a lot more brief about Pharnaces but in the book he looks up to his father as an ancient Greek god. Mithridates is describes as a very tall and muscular man who could wield sword and bow with the best of his soldiers. He is also said to speak all the dialects and languages of his kingdom (numbering more than 20) and to be resistant to poisoning by regularly taking an antidote. Pharnaces also describes his hatred for Rome and his ambitions to found a new Hellenic state to revive it's ancient culture. Mithridates is said to have looked down upon Roman culture.

We follow Mithridates on his various campaigns against the Romans, his victories and losses and the consequences for the Kingdom of Pontus. Events are very much influenced by the situation in Rome. The republic is far from stable and rapidly on it's way to being replaced by an empire. Pharnaces's narrative is at times overly dramatic, and sometimes at odds with the events he describes. On the one hand we see a man who is king by being the biggest, baddest son of a bitch in his country, on the other a man who sees cultured man, proud of his Greek and Persian heritage, eager to restore Greek culture to it's former greatness. Inevitably the Romans are describes as rude, uncivilized and cruel. Where history is a one sided Roman affair Ford seems to have turned it around 180 degrees and written the book completely from the Pontic side of things.

If you read between the lines however the picture that emerges is that of a charismatic king but not one with particular skills as a general. More often than not he is saved by events taking place in Rome rather than victories on the field of battle. In fact, most of the victories he can claim are short-lived at the very best. His one true skill in battle was probably that of survival. Pharnaces is very much aware of events in the world beyond Pontus but he keeps being surprised of inevitable betrayals and defeats. He also seems to have an incredible amount of faith in his father's army even after it is beaten a number of times in positions where they vastly outnumber the Romans. In short, he strikes me as rather naive. An opinion that is further supported by the end of the book and the death of Mithridates.

When writing a historical novel on events so poorly documented there is always a good deal of story the writer has to fill in using his imagination. Ford does that in part by using just about every bit of gossip and legend known about Mithridates. It is much more likely that Mithridates was trying to build an empire in the Black Sea area rather than being the next Alexander. Even in ancient times propaganda was not unknown. It makes for a better story to use his desire to restore Greece to it's former greatness as Mithridates' motivation to take on the Romans of course but it also adds an element of doubt about the historical accuracy of the novel. This combined with Pharnaces' insistence on seeing godlike qualities in his father made me like this book less that The Ten Thousand, even if that is a just as biased a version of history as this tale is.

On the whole though, The Last King is an accessible, fast paced historical fiction novel, with a lot of detailed descriptions of military action. I don't quite agree with the Roman's (and apparently the publisher's) judgement that Mithridates was their most dangerous enemy. It seems to me Rome was Rome's greatest enemy during the final decades of the republic. But history is written by the victors and they like to stress their achievement wherever possible. The Last King is a decent read, but not memorable.

Other Reviews of works by Michael Curtis Ford

The Ten Thousand - Jan 19, 2008