cinzia8

Thanks guys for your responses. I might move this question to the Latin thread. Cinzia

Viggen: If you worked in a stone quarry and ate one meal a day, you might have a "rockin" 6 pack too! <g> Interesting topic. Cinzia

Hi all: I know someone addressed this recently (probably in Academia) but I can't remember where exactly, but is the term for a cavalryman an "equite"? I thought I saw someone post that it was equitus. Thanks, Cinzia

Hi: In Steven Saylor's first novel ROMAN BLOOD the first chapter mentions Cicero (a character in the novel) to place us, but in the front of the book after the contents page is a map of Rome titled: ROME At the time of Sulla's Dictatorship, 80 B.C. I have Silver Pigs and will look to see if I can find it. Cinzia

Thank you for the suggestions, much appreciated. My characters mention only Attila, Valentinian and a few others that are specific to this time period. I have used chapter subtitles that mention the time of year and year and decided to go with Augustus, A.D. 450 etc. I agree with you, this is fiction and I have noticed through my writing group that even three Roman names together confound some. <g> Consequently, I think keeping the time marker closer to a modern context will be a benefit for the reader. This is a plot driven book in a historical setting. However, I want to immerse the reader into the historical time period as well and strive for a simple accuracy. Cinzia

Thanks Artimi. It's a nice thing for you to say. Have a wonderful week. Cinzia

I didn't realise you had a novel, Cinzia. Was that me just being slow on the uptake, or have you been modest? You're hardly slow, Clayton.<g> I do have an unpublished novel in it's final revision. It's a 5th century epic tale, but a bit too epic (175,000 words) for most agents, so, I went back in and changed it from multiple pov (which I happen to love for purposes of sub-plot and characterization, but the word is that readers don't like long books-hmm. I guess George R.R. Martin and more than a few others didn't get that memo) to 3rd person limited pov. I have 2 chapters left and I'm at 145K. I was hoping to get it to 145K, but we'll see. I have the battle at Catalaunum, the climax and resolution to get through. <sigh> Anyway, this forum has helped a woman who has never wielded a sword and never fought a battle (other than a cat fight in high school-meow-<g>) with details, ideas, great opinions and knowledge. And when this book makes it to print, I promise, you all will know. Cinzia

Scott: I wanted to say hello. You know me from the Ancient History Forum as Garic (my male alter ego and the hero of my novel<g>). We're also friends on Facebook. I love this forum. I'm sure you will too. Cinzia is Cynthia in Italian and my nickname. Welcome.

guy also known as gaius Gaius: What a beautiful coin!! The dating system here seems simple enough and makes sense (from the year of the birth of the city). Thanks for posting this. Cinzia

Thanks, Caldrail. This helps. Cinzia

Hi all: I'm wondering if one can correctly say a person "fired" an arrow or must it always be "shot?" Thanks, Cinzia

Are you talking about how you should use it in exposition or in dramatization? In dramatization, it would be anachronistic to use CE (a PRC tag adopted in 1949) or AD (also hadn't been invented until 525). So, unless your characters are time travelers, it would be weird for them to use CE or AD. Same thing if the novel is told in the first person. But in standard (i.e., 3rd person) exposition, it's your voice that counts. How do you want to come across? Personally, I think AD sounds old-fashioned and parochial; others think CE sounds politically correct. Thanks Cato. They are not speaking of the year to one another. If they were I would most likely go with what some have mentioned: the year of the consul etc.. This is just a chapter sub-heading, ex. Germania A.D. 448. I use Latin chapter titles, so as suggested, A.D. might blend better because it is Latin. Originally I did use CE, but readers in my writers group mentioned that it might be what's happening in the academic community but the general population is still somewhat unaware. It is a mainstream novel. I also see that movies and TV are still using A.D.. I saw a commercial for Terra Nova and they listed the year as 2149 A.D. It was tagged after the number but as stated in this thread, I believe it is accurate to tag it before the numbers. Also, I went and changed it all, so at this point there's no goin' back. BTW there is a cat in my story named Cato. <g> Better yet, a reader in my group read the scene with the cat and circled the name and wrote Kato beside it. I felt like saying, "Ah, dude (me being cool) that's the Green Hornet's sidekick." Cinzia. Try this [Germania in the year 448]. You don't need to add Anno Domini or Common Era to the end that way and just use B.C. in the form of Germania 25 B.C. for earlier than 1 A.D. this way the person reading it will know by context what you are describing. This Idea doesn't work if you need something like Carthage in the years 25 B.C. and 25 . Depending on who your audience is and what you are discussing A.D. may be be the better choice or C.E. could be. If you are aiming for the Average person use A.D. if it's for the Academic use C.E. If it's general Roman history you can use A.D. but if you are dealing with Jesus then you must use C.E. as having him born in 8 A.D.or before 5 B.C. can confuse and anger the reader. Thanks Romanus for your input. I will keep this advice in mind. Cinzia

Are you talking about how you should use it in exposition or in dramatization? In dramatization, it would be anachronistic to use CE (a PRC tag adopted in 1949) or AD (also hadn't been invented until 525). So, unless your characters are time travelers, it would be weird for them to use CE or AD. Same thing if the novel is told in the first person. But in standard (i.e., 3rd person) exposition, it's your voice that counts. How do you want to come across? Personally, I think AD sounds old-fashioned and parochial; others think CE sounds politically correct. Thanks Cato. They are not speaking of the year to one another. If they were I would most likely go with what some have mentioned: the year of the consul etc.. This is just a chapter sub-heading, ex. Germania A.D. 448. I use Latin chapter titles, so as suggested, A.D. might blend better because it is Latin. Originally I did use CE, but readers in my writers group mentioned that it might be what's happening in the academic community but the general population is still somewhat unaware. It is a mainstream novel. I also see that movies and TV are still using A.D.. I saw a commercial for Terra Nova and they listed the year as 2149 A.D. It was tagged after the number but as stated in this thread, I believe it is accurate to tag it before the numbers. Also, I went and changed it all, so at this point there's no goin' back. BTW there is a cat in my story named Cato. <g> Better yet, a reader in my group read the scene with the cat and circled the name and wrote Kato beside it. I felt like saying, "Ah, dude (me being cool) that's the Green Hornet's sidekick." Cinzia.

It's the dedication inscription on one of the gates/aqueducts of Rome. So cool. Thank you for sharing this with me. Do you have a photo of the gate? Cinzia

Yes, and what is important here is that you referred to a year by naming who ever ruled, not by a standardized year system: in the empire this had to do primarily with the ruling emperors tribun and consulship, as it had been the consuls (and probably military tribunes in the early years?) during the republic. It worked in the same way in the Greek world where they had eponym Archons (basically "giving name consul" to provide a very rought translation into Roman terms). Here is an example of the dating, from Porta Maggiore in Rome: Ti(berius) Claudius Drusi f(ilius) Caisar Augustus Germanicus pontif(ex) maxim(us) / tribunicia potestate XII co(n)s(ul) V imperator XXVII pater patriae / aquas Claudiam ex fontibus qui vocabantur Caeruleus et Curtius a milliario XXXXV / item Anienem novam a milliario LXII sua impensa in urbem perducendas curavit (Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, son of Drusus, Pontefix Maximus, with tribune power for the twelfth time, consul for the fifth, imperator for the twenty seventh, father of the country, undertook, on his own expense, the leading of aqua Claudius from the springs called Caeruleus and Curtus at the 45th milestone and in the same manner the leading of Anio Novus at the 62nd milestone to the city) (My own translation) CIL 1256 = ILS 218a, 52/53 AD. This is awesome, but it's got my head spinning. LOL Is this chiseled into stone or written on an important document?

That's so interesting the way they expressed themselves. However, authors deal with word count and a mainstream understanding. I also want the reader to go into the scene knowing the month. I start in August and build up to Catalaunum in June. I like using Valentinian, but even though he vows xxv years, he's not necessarily in year xxv. I think it best that I use a more conventional approach.

Viggen: Now that I think about, you're right. I use Latin in my story, so AD would be more harmonious with the tone of the novel. It would be entirely appropriate for the modern narrator or you, speaking as author, to use AD. However, characters or narrators true to their time environment would use the names of the two consuls to identify the year. The other options include reign of Emperor, etc. I did a little research in regard to AUC. It was used, but not as frequently as the year of Consul X and Consul Y. Good luck! Does this help? : http://www.absolutea...Ab_urbe_condita It's very helpful. Thank you! Cinzia

I just want some setting tags at the beginning of the chapters. Ex. Germania: in the month of Augustus, AD 448. Im thinking "under the consulship of I haven't a clue--have to look it up" might be too long. However, I do like the accuracy or sound of it. <g> Cinzia

These are great viewpoints!! This CE or AD question was bothering me. I use Latin in the story and I think I will change back to using AD. I originally started with AD and then after doing research on my topic, I thought to be accurate, I should use CE. Then when someone questioned my use of CE over AD, it got me thinking again. I should have come here first! Thanks, guys! Cinzia

Viggen: Now that I think about, you're right. I use Latin in my story, so AD would be more harmonious with the tone of the novel.

Ludovicus: I just learned something. I never heard of AUC. Are there historical documents that use this reference? I'm afraid the historical novel reader wouldn't understand AUC even if it's the most accurate. Cinzia

Viggen: I thought CE was a world wide academic term now used by scholars. How interesting that this might be an English language term.

Hi all: I'm looking for opinions as to whether I should use CE or AD in my historical novel. It has been suggested to me that the average reader will understand AD easier than CE. Ex. Gaul 451 A.D. rather than 451 CE. I've been using CE. Any thoughts are appreciated. I hope this question hasn't strayed too far from the military aspects of the forum. Cinzia

In my opinion, I'm not sure the Huns were so undisciplined. They followed a chain of command and believed in the invincibility of their people and leader and loved wealth. Not unlike many of the barbarians in today's world from all cultures who operate in many different arenas for purposes of money and power. LOL Perhaps Roman adaptation in warfare was difficult not unlike the English experienced in the Revolutionary war. Unable to understand or recognize change; leadership; communication; ethnically diverse ranks; a corroded nationalistic view etc. all play a role in the inability of a people, army or nation to adapt. I just find it hard to believe that if a Magister Militum like Aetius witnessed any favorable military strategies or practices as a boy in the Hun camp, he wouldn't incorporate them in some way into his "bag of tricks." My study, though, hasn't ventured much past Aetius and the Huns at Catalaunum. Cinzia

Feel free to delete my post related to Indochina-I just got pissed and hyped up over the comment of VietMinh defending the country. Vietnam/Indochina is one war I take damn seriously and whenever people repeat cliched myths as a specialist in the war I feel I have to correct and inform others and tell them what really happened in Indochina. Anyway back to the topic. There are many stereotypes on the Huns and the most famous of them is that they are comprised of Horse Archers. But common sense indicates that they must have adopted infantry,siege equipment, etc. at some point in their invasion of Rome like the Mongols did in their world conquest. May I recommend THE HUNS by E.A. Thompson and ATTILA THE HUN by John Man. There are other sources as well, but these are very good. The history channel did an overview of the Huns on DVD as part of their BARBARIANS series. Attila had a certain power of personality, strength and acumen. He spent time with Aetius as boys when Aetius came to the Hun camp as a political hostage. Attila had a fair understanding of the Roman way and nature. When he moved westward into Europe, he absorbed barbarian tribes into his. The Huns were excellent horse archers, but he also maintained an infantry comprised of a diversity of barbarians. Chalon (Catalaunum) was not just a fight of horse against Roman infantry.