The Augusta

To add my own two denarii, Neo - others have given sound advice here, but whatever period you choose, please make sure that you are 'steeped' in it! I am sure Lanista, for instance, spent many days while writing his novel, actually believing he was his protagonist (the fact that she was a female only adds to his powers of imagination and visualisation). Whatever you do, do not write 'history'. You are creating a story to draw your reader into the period you love. For that reader, the journey and adventures of your protagonist must be intimately experienced. Your story must be happening 'now', but the 'now' is ancient Rome. Contrast this with the formula that has a story 'set back in time' that is all very pretty and exciting, but the reader cannot experience it first hand. So, know your history in its every detail, but only as the background to your character's motivations. As far as the history is concerned, the skill here is knowing what to leave out more than what to include. Whilst you find the rise of Marius fascinating, your reader may not want to read about the political machinations in detail. This is hard for us all. We love our particular period of history and in our enthusiasm to share it with the world we sometimes forget that what matters to most readers is a smoothly moving storyline with characters we can love or hate. Most of all, we must identify with the characters. To get your reader to identify with a man who lived over 2000 years ago is your main objective. It's tough. You must not imbue him with 21st century views and morals, for instance. It's difficult to do, but if you truly love your period and 'imagine' yourself as your protagonist, you will find it a lot easier to write a convincing character. As for historical accuracy - I have one rule: We cannot blatantly change the known facts, but where sources are silent on a topic, we have room to manoeuvre. Nor can we include every fact, but if the history remains in our minds - in the background, so to speak - we will create a more convincing storyline. As you are choosing a totally fictitious character to build your series around, you have much more leeway than someone who takes a known historical figure as their protagonist. I still have not encountered the delights of Donna Gillespie, but I know that Lanista thinks highly of her. Read and re-read the works of critically acclaimed historical novelists, and popularly acclaimed novelists too, to get an idea of style and content. Hope this helps a bit.

I will miss our Don Tomasso. His enthusiasm was infectious; his sense of humour quirky but never offensive. Go to the gods in peace, Tom, taking the love of your friends on UNRV with you.

Hi, Vibs - from a fellow sufferer. OK - let's get this show on the road. We'll do it bit by bit: "Shrines and temples were filled with boisterous men cheering and jeering as animals were sacrificed. Vibius glimpsed the tavern, it was alive with energy. The noise drew Vibius in with a smile igniting his face." Ambiguity here. It sounds like the noise is smiling! A bit clunky. The sentence structure is also passive, which is an immediate no-no to agents/publishers. 'Men filled the shrines and temples' rather than them being filled etc. You don't need the 'boisterous' qualifier. If men are cheering and jeering, the reader will know they are boisterous. Try to knock out the weak 'was' and 'were' and use stronger verbs. "The tavern was bursting with life. Men from all backgrounds were merrily chanting or drinking. A Roman soldier and a peasant sat side by side gulping from two large urns, both were sloshing the red liquid about them. Tables and chairs spilt out onto the road - all full with men." Ambiguity again - is the road filled with men, or the tables and chairs? "A thick tree bough was standing in an iron bracket above the doorway. Crowned with flames, it illuminated most of the outside along with the table candles. It wept shards of flame into the air as it flickered orange light onto the cheerful faces below. Vibius walked inside, out of the chilling night air and into the warmth." 'It wept shards of flame' is really good here. However, just a wee nit-pick - the Romans did not use the term 'orange', as the fruit was unknown to them. Change your light to yellow or red. 'Out of the night air and into the warmth' is redundant here. The reader has got the picture, so Vibiius just needs to walk inside. "An armoured soldier walked by with a grey faced man muttering to himself incoherently. The soldier placed him by the door and he fell asleep instantly, still muttering with a toothless smile on his lips. The soldier let out a deep laugh and turned back inside. A seat was free at the counter and Vibius sat himself down admiring the armour. It was well made and looked good but he doubted it would hold up to a really powerful lunge. Vibius looked away as he thought of what his father would say about the armour and even worse, what he was doing." I'm with Stephen King - 'The Adverb is NOT your friend'. You don't need 'incoherently' after the muttering. If a man mutters, we know his words are incoherent. 'Instantly' follows in the very next sentence. "Vibius yer turned up, I thought yer weren't goin' to come? 'Ave a free drink lad." Said the friendly tavern keeper handing Vibius a drink with a gnarled hand." Again, ambiguity. Did the drink have a gnarled hand, or the tavern keeper? I would also agree with Neph, that the dialogue of the tavern keeper leaps out at us as anachronistic. Using dialectical speech in dialogue is very dicey. Instead, try to show that the tavern keeper is a rough sort by the words he uses, or his strange twists of grammar, while still trying to keep it authentic to the period. An example: "Evening, Vibius. Bit late for you, isn't it? This one's free - enjoy it, lad!" But there's certainly the basis of something here, Vibs - keep at it; give it a spit and a polish, and see what comes up. Let's see some more! Hehe - there's also a couple of commas that should be semi-colons, but I'm not going to be that pedantic. I'll post a bit of mine for you to see and we can have a mutual exchange. Good luck with your project.

May I apologise with suitable grovelling-at-feet to you, Scipio, for my less than helpful post a few weeks ago! The day-to-day troubles of women of a certain age often take us unawares. Thirty years of discussing the Julio-Claudians has tipped me over the edge, I think. I'm usually such a 'nice' gal - as most of our members would tell you - so ignore me and extend to me your forgiveness. But as to your question about Germanicus' death, I am with Maty and others - I really cannot accept that he was murdered, and there are several older threads where you will find useful discussions on the topic. Pax, Amice!

Well, they clearly haven't questioned this particular Brit! Vampire hunters? Loathe them. Give me the vampires every time.

We're all awaiting the nod from our Emperor. As befits his elevated status, he is to post first. As he is my own very dear husband, he did let me know behind closed doors that his report is almost ready for posting, so hopefully we won;t have much longer to wait.

I'm sporadically on the Forum these days due to one thing and another, but I couldn;t let this one go by.... Have fun Spittle and sink a few good old Yorkshire pints for me. And I demand to know why the beer emoticon has been taken off!!!! By all the gods - Spits is from Yorkshire and therefore a man. We want the beer back, Triumvirs!

Not as late as me, Neph!!! How remiss of me to miss your birthday, Ingsoc. Hope it was a great day. Felicitations to the member with the best avatar! Seriously - we love you, Ingsoc. Many happy returns.

Telling the truth gets us no better thought of, Calders. I was once credited with the best excuse ever for being late for work. On my way to the bus one morning, two little children ran up to me crying. I had to help them. There was a tiny kitten crying in the bushes. Being of a feline-friendly nature I could not walk away and went to investigate. An abandoned little black runt, its eyes not yet open. I had to take it home and hand it over to my mother to keep safe until I returned from work. Needless to say, I missed the bus and had to get a later one. I could have said I overslept, and the boss would have grinned and let me off. Telling him about the kitten, however, brought a frown and that terrible, piercing gaze that betrayed his utter disbelief. We can't win, you know - we Honest Johns and Jills.

Well, I tried it. I got 1320. That monkey was damned annoying!

Well, I can't resist this. Livia has been much maligned. However, we do only find this malignancy in Dio (who lived 200 years after Livia), who no doubt drew upon those odd sentences in Tacitus that never said outright....but hinted... etc. etc. Strangely, Suetonius, our most scurrilous source, has nothing at all to say about Livia poisoning folk! Strange, that, for a biographer who named every rumour going! Perhaps this is why serious scholars through the years have never subscribed to the theory that Livia removed Augustus' heirs. Sonic makes a good point here. Those of us who have studied history at a tertiary level are taught to evaluate our sources. Once these skills are learned they become such a part of us that we can no longer blindly accept anything we read. This is all to the good. Such evaluation helps to shape the historians of the next generation and so on. And he is right to cite historians who base their own interpretations and theories on a single primary source. For Gaius (Caligula) for instance, we have no Tacitus (alas). We only have Suetonius, whom Dio no doubt drew upon. And the list goes on. But the opposite can apply. If all our primary sources are largely in favour of a person - say, Augustus or Constantine - why then do we get historians who are content to 'blackwash' these 'paragons'? Precisely because they are historians and they are taught to pull apart every line and phrase of the ancient texts. If they didn't do that they wouldn't be doing their job. A good historian will take into account all the evidence available to him, including non-written sources - inscriptions, coinage, portraiture, buildings etc. to paint a fuller picture of his subject. If we restrict ourselves to just one major text, we will not get the true picture. However, having said this, I am not in favour of historians who seek to deconstruct every source to support their argument, just for the sake of being 'different'. (One can think of many modern examples) But nor am I in favour of those who accept every panegyric blindly as the truth. In the end it is down to the individual, and where reading history is concerned, we are largely in the hands of those who construct a plausible argument and back it with hard evidence from the primary sources. Although people will offer the argument that each generation of historians interprets the past differently, interpretation should not be confused with subjective modern opinion. The facts as we know them - few that they are - will never change. As for Constantine, Sonic - I am afraid I can offer nothing here, as he is not 'my period'. I merely answred this from your initial invitation. Hope you don't mind.

Drusus for the Jewish men, eh? Well, I've always known they had good taste... But seriously, Neph - is there any evidence to suggest that the adoption of Latin names by the Jews - especially in the Julio-Claudian period, was due to the influence of Agrippa? I am sure Ingsoc will back me up here. Marcus Agrippa was very highly thought of by the Jews of the late 1st century BC/early 1st century AD, and perhaps his temperate rule of the territories made all things Roman and Latin a tad more palatable....?

They must be really struggling for news items in this part of the world! But I shall rush out to buy a bag of Cheetos to see if I can find Augustus. For every Jesus there must be a Prima Porta statue.....

I've finally got around to Heather's 'Fall' and I'm enjoying it immensely. I like his ease of style combined with non-intrusive scholarship - which is exactly what I want in a generalised account. And it has made me wonder - is Heather the successor to Grant? He certainly has the potential to be.

Agreed! And at the risk of repeating myself and boring all non-theatricals rigid, may I address you to many of my bugbears regarding the performances in 'Rome' in that particular thread! I'm glad I'm not alone Calders and Ludo! It's the same old chestnut I have about historical novels. Both theatre/TV and books should have a modern enough flavour to save the work from being laughably old-fashioned, but there is a true art and skill involved in rendering authenticity.

Volume X 'The Augustan Empire' sits on my shelves to this day (I bought it in 1982 at a grand price of

Alas, no, Doc. They will have to go through the qualifying rounds like everyone else. Only the hosts of the World Cup escape the qualifiers. Even previous holders have to qualify these days - which means Italia better get their bums in gear pretty sharpish!

Congratulations to Spain, who fully deserved to win this tournament - and I said I would hold up my hands if them or the Dutch ran out winners, so I am standing up to be counted. Spain have finally found that extra edge that has turned them from gorgeous-to-watch under-achievers to champions, and I should think they will be very hard to beat at the next World Cup. I could never really support Spain - until that most barbaric tradition in Andalusia and other places is stopped - but even I believed that they deserved to win this tournament after they got to the final. What I loved about this team in particular was that every time they went on the attack they would vary their tactics and invent new ways to break down the opposition. They were never boring or predictable. A total footballing side. So, for football's sake - Well Done Spain! It has been a damned good tournament, all things considered. I've enjoyed it immensely.

Kosmo - don't blame Donadoni entirely! He didn't invent these tactics. Believe me, he is carrying on a long, long tradition. I have been watching Italian football as long as I have been watching English football - i.e. 40 years. Tonight was a classic example of the Italian 'testudo' mentality. What did they have to defend? Their penalty box, of course! I can tell you that Roberto - until this tournament - had instilled the team with a far more attacking mentality than they had hitherto had. I honestly do believe that the loss of Cannavaro before the start of the group stages threw everything out of the window, and he went for the old tried and tested Plan B. It is a given fact that in football, the Italian's first priority is not to lose. Unfortunately, we saw it in full measure tonight. On a purely technical level, one has to admire such steely defending, but alas, it doesn't make for an entertaining game. I have no complaints. Had we gone through in the shoot-out, it would have been very hard on Spain. Justice was done and the better team have gone through.

Well, that's it for another tournament. And after saying that we wouldn't miss Pirlo and Gattuso - my, how we missed 'em! Having said that, I am used to watching the Azzurri go into their Roman legionary testudo tactics like they did tonight, and once again, it almost came off in the shoot-out. However, I am probably one of the biggest fans of the Azzurri on here, but I have to say that di Natale missing his penalty was justice. He had done what I hate - rolled back onto the pitch when injured to get the game stopped. This is a trick the Italians must have learned from the Spanish, whose Reyes perfected it all over Europe! But I detest it whoever does it, so when I saw him step up for that pen I knew he would miss. And I could not begrudge Cesc his final winning penalty - I love the lad as a player and a person. Ah well - I will now be rooting for my second team and my overall tip to win the thing in the first place - Germany.

Well Kosmo, I went on record as saying (very early on) that neither Holland nor Spain would win this tournament, and I will still stand by it. Although gli Azzurri are a bit hampered tomorrow by the suspension of Pirlo, he has hardly been at his best in this tournament, and we are due a decent game from Ambrosini. Reno Gattuso isn't half the player he was, so his suspension tomorrow probably won't be too much of a loss either. Nevertheless, I'm expecting a very tight game, but I do feel that the final of this tournament will be played between Germany and Italy. And let's hope that Luca Toni can make up for all his missed chances in this tournament! God - the man should be on 10 goals! I had flirted with the Portugese a week ago after Germany's poor show against Croatia, but at that stage I did not know that they would play Portugal in the quarters. Once that was on the cards I knew there would be only one winner. FORZA AZZURRI!

Galataseray? I think a few of us have no love for the Turks, GPM. Although I can't stand Croatia either, I will be hoping they dump them out. I was heartbroken for Big Pete. Not only did it happen to one of the world's best goalies, but it happened to one of the world's nicest guys! That's a deadly combination. I had tears in my eyes for him. As for me - tonight I am the happiest girl on the planet! Nuff said - no need to explain. Just one thing though - tonight, Big Pete's rival for the World's Best Goalie' crown showed yet again why he is worth every euro that was spent on him. I am too high to comment properly on the game at the mo - will get back later.

Kosmo, I really think you are missing something in this equation! Mutu struck his penalty very well indeed and Buffon dived the wrong way initially. It is due to the fact that he is one of the world's best goalkeepers that he salvaged the thing by a very acrobatic twist in the air! Don't be too hard on Mutu. Gigi Buffon kept Italy in the tournament rather than Adrian messing things up for Romania. There isn't a single journalist or sports commentator over here who blames Mutu for that penalty miss; it was just a moment of brilliance and determination from Buffon. Now, I wish I could wish you good luck for Tuesday, but you know I dare not! A win for Romania against Holland on Tuesday means Italy AND France will go out. However, I am beginning to get very, very nervous about Tuesday! Once again the Azzurri are in the horrible position of needing to win themselves and hope that the other result goes their way too. I seem to remember we were in this position in 2004! I really do think that we will beat France, but it's what happenes between Holland and Romania that counts!