Okay, I haven't found a single website yet that collects together the problems with Whyte, per se, but I can mark a few points just off the top of my head.
(most of this is drawn from
Skystone, as that one I looked into the most closely; I stopped reading the series halfway through the third book)
The main characters have a deep and abiding love for the Roman Republic, as opposed to the Roman Empire. However, the Republic that they speak of died in the early 2nd century BC, around the time of Marius. The subsequent wars (up through Octavius) wiped out most memory of anything approaching "democractic" institutions in Rome. Admittedly Rome technically remained a Republic (Res Publica) and nominally the Senate had a major say in matters, but the knowledge these officers showed of the workings of the old Republic is fairly amazing.
Whyte certainly knows Roman infantry tactics. Unfortunately the tactics he is familiar with had not been practiced for nearly 150 years by the time his book begins -- they were the primary form of warfare during the time of the Roman civil wars (1st century BC through 1st century AD). These are classical Roman maniple/checkerboard tactics, which has been subsequently replaced by a more solid mass of troops, with greater reliance on skirmishers, cavalry, and many types of "irregular" troops. Nevertheless Gaius Publus Varrus is able to train troops, many of whom were unfamiliar with any form of serious tactics, within a matter of weeks to handle such complicated manuevers. This defies belief.
On the same topic, the entire colony is set up as a home for citizen soldiers, yet not only do they raise a vast amount of crops, but they these farmers are highly trained soldiers. This was not even true with the Romans for the most part (other than in the writings of Livy, whom I love, but are often far from truthful). In most areas it would be assumed that full-time, fully prepared soldiers must each be supported by 8-10 fulltime farmers; cavalry troops require even great numbers this way. And the ability to "hide" such a huge group of people is beyond all belief.
Whyte also shows a misunderstanding of Roman naming conventions. In the name Gaius Publus Varrus, for example, Gaius is the given name, but Publus is the family name. Gaius is of the Publi, not of the Varri; it is this middle name that would be inhereted by his family, not the final name.
And as for the use of the "skystone" and its subsequent many forms, well, I have a friend who is a blacksmith screamed reading these segments -- by his estimation, the re-forged sword would be good for one blow, at best, before it shattered.
There are many other points, but it is not really worth it to enter into a full-blown debate on this topic on this forum, though I invite anyone interested to contact me either by private message or through my e-mail address
But back to games, which is far more important!
The book
Legends of Excalibur looks awfully good for D20; I have not had a chance to actually use it yet.
S&R: Excalibur is more questionable, mainly because I am utterly unsure what sort of Arthurian legend they are attempting to capture -- it feels more like a Michael Moorcock parallel dimension rather than the legends themselves. That is not bad, but it would be best if it were advertised as such. The
Medieval Player's Manual is a joy and could easily be used to recreate a medieval Arthurian feel.
For a more "period" feel, I think we are still waiting, as the time period we are talking about (c. 400 AD) is not quite the ancient world and not quite the medieval.
And, yes,
Pendragon, though not D20 and aimed primarily at Mallory, is a marvel
!
