cinzia8

I'm sorry about the late reply but for some reason, I'm not getting notifications. I've checked my settings but will check again. This is for a novel. The Frank characters speak to Romans in Latin, but at times switch to their own language for privacy. I've been using, "He spoke in German." And at times I use "Ja" and some small phrases in German. It has to be easy for the reader to understand not necessarily specifically accurate. I just saw an author in the same time period referring to a Frank character as "speaking in Frankish." This is why I'm questioning which might be truer to the period. I'm out of town and away from my resource materials, but revising, so I thought I would ask. Thanks for the interest and the map!! Cinzia

Thanks everyone for the insights. Cinzia

My area is Belgica Secunda (Salian Franks), which is in the vicinity of modern Belgium. I also believe the Franks united under Clovis absorbed the gallic Latin spoken in the areas they settled and the change toward what eventually became French.

Hello all: I'm writing a story with Frank characters. It is 450 CE. When they switch from Latin to their language, I've been using the word German. My research tells me that they spoke a western German dialect or language, but I'm wondering if I should use the term Frankish? I believe this reference may apply to later in time but I'm not sure. Any knowledgeable advice or opinions. Thanks, Cinzia

Wow, I'd forgotten I'd set that little conundrum. The source was discussed in some length in this thread, so it's not much of a secret anymore. In fact, I seem to remember that it was won with almost indecent speed by Nephele. She won a guided tour of the Roman sites in Provence. Really! Ask her if you don't believe me. With it now being a bit of an open secret, I've had to downgrade the prize to a guided tour of the Roman sites in Lincoln. In fact, I'd cheerfully show any UNRVian round the Roman sites of Lincoln, so it isn't much of a prize, really. It's just my way of giving something back. I think it's wonderful to be part of group of people that have favourite classical-era Germanic tribes . . . and I genuinely say that that with all respect and sincerity. I'm afraid I roam out of time and land in antiquated areas on occasion. Sorry <g> Your downgraded prize seems quite nice but alas there are few Roman sites in Chicago and Lincoln (unless you mean Nebraska and I know this is quite impossible) is much too far for me.

Sadly, it seems to be only available as a Region 1. Shame, it looks like just the sort of thing I'd have liked on my DVD shelf. You'll have to let us know what you think, Ursus. Nice video. Too bad it's region 1. Ghost, is your avatar Arturius? Cinzia

Just finished Angelology by Trussoni. Her style is worth the reading alone. Takes place in New York City and revolves around the secret world of the Nephilim (half angel-half human) and not the kind of angels some humans believe watch over them!

Both my parents are Tuscan and my mother has always read about and connected us with Etruscans. She claimed that Etruscan origins were believed to be semitic. Cinzia

I've had a lot of discussions about Roman "steel", and it all tends to stem from the idea that steel is just iron plus carbon, so what's the big deal? But even up into the 19th century a lot of wrought iron was used for constructing bridges, buildings, etc. Today, typical carpenter's nails, known as "common" nails, are soft iron as are railroad spikes, for example. It appears that the Chinese and Indians developed processes for steel making long before the West, but the technology was considered a military secret, not something that was freely shared with the rest of the world. There are pretty strong opinions I've read that "Damascus steel" was actually "Wootz steel" from India that was imported and sold through Damascus. So if you use the word "steel" in writing about Roman armor, I'm among those who will detect that as most likely incorrect. Now a Roman pilum was designed so that once it was thrown by a Roman legionary, it wouldn't be thrown back by the other side. There's some pretty good description of its design, along with pictures at this link: Roman Pilum. They were, in fact, designed to bend to render them useless as a weapon once thrown. In addition, they could penetrate an enemy's shield and then bend over, rendering his shield useless as well. One feature that is not mentioned in this article is the way the iron shaft was joined to the wooden portion - at least in some designs - using one metal pin and one wooden dowel to hold it in place. When the pilum struck, or perhaps when an enemy was fumbling around trying to disengage himself from it, the wooden dowel would break, leaving the iron shaft to swivel freely on the remaining metal pin. This design was instituted by Gaius Marius as part of his reforms when he created the professional Roman army around 107 BC. I appreciate the insight and links!! I love visual models. I do find Roman and barbarian weaponry quite fascinating. In the end, I will try to avoid the word "steel" and use metal instead. I suspect fiction writers in this period who use the word steel either use it because they are ignorant of the facts or because the word steel conjures a shiny and sharp image. I just found it interesting to see the word steel used in some Roman historical fiction and asked because I also believed that a steel product came much later in time. Thanks.

The bent nail is a very good example for your opinion, and the links, illustrate quite nicely. Thank you. My engineer friend, would agree with you. He believes the Romans didn't have the technology etc. to make a "steel" product, but there has been some basis for arguing this view on this thread. The notion that steel weapons and armor existed in this time seems to be bandied about in fiction and non-fiction. In this month's Military History an article about Trajan's Column refers to one of its details, "Into the Camp" with a description of the legionnaires wearing "steel lorica segmentata body armor..." So, as a writer, if I use the term "steel" I have a feeling the accurate history police won't fine or discredit me.<g> I am curious about what you said of the pilum, that they were intended to bend. Was this so a warrior could disengage the shaft from a shield, etc. so as not to become a victim?

Please include me as well. May Fortuna bless me with luck! <g>

Good point about the stirrups. After what I read about Aetius and the Huns, it was just a question that came to my mind. Why not imitate a method that made mounting easier? I was tremendously assured on the forum that they were not used until much later.<g> I guess you have me convinced that steel swords were being used, maybe not in uniformity but they existed and were not uncommon. What a subject, but it fascinates me! Cinzia

I'm concerned mostly with the 5th century. If by then Fabricae where producing arms, I imagine there would be some "blueprint" or "formula" for buying (they would have to know what and how much), housing and producing materials. Romans were ordered, so wouldn't they think in terms like what do I need to produce 100 spatha a month, or year to be ready for the next campaign? So, there might be evidence that they were acquiring carbon and iron to use, or at least iron. Also, it seems possible that soldiers also bought from smaller smiths like I might buy a bracelet from a local artisan or distinctive jeweler to get that specialty piece and here is where they might have possibly been able to get "steel" swords, possibly coveted and at a higher price. It just seems odd that there seems to be no clear reference to something as superior as a steel sword or real evidence. This topic reminds me of the time I asked on another forum wasn't it odd that Aetius who spent his formative boyhood years with the Huns never thought to introduce the stirrup to the Roman army, especially when the Huns carried the reputation for being superior riders. <g> That was a storm unleashed! Cinzia

I think my confusion stems from the fact that to outfit legions (someone mentioned that soldiers could buy their swords from the government cheaper than privately) there had to be some sort of mass production. Wouldn't raw materials like charcoal and iron have to be stockpiled? Does anyone know of any ancient historians writing about swords with a clear reference that indicates that general knowledge thought in terms of "steel" or a metal superior to iron? Is there a Latin term for steel? Thank you all for your insights. It's a lively and interesting discussion. Cinzia

In regards to whether swords like the Spatha and Gladius can be considered steel, I found this paper that would definitely indicate that these swords were definitely made of iron, with very little to no properties that would be considered steel. I think these swords should be referred to as metal or iron swords and any reference to steel is inaccurate. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/h-carnegie-steel.htm A Brief History of Iron and Steel Production by Professor Joseph S. Spoerl Saint Anselm College

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and viewpoints. This is immensely helpful. If only I could hold a spatha and have a tactile understanding of this, but I had the same wish when I was researching the Hun composite bow! <g> At least I wont be afraid to use the word steel and I know my Frank shields are truly wooden and so "Thud" it is. No clangs for me, unless it's sword against sword or axe. Cinzia

I'm doing research for weapons used at Chalon (451 CE) by Romans and barbarians. I'm under the impression that barbarian shields were mostly round, wooden, lined in leather or metal (silver or brass) with a metal shield boss. Also, I believe the Scutum were also wooden. I'm also a bit confused if the swords were steel or iron. Pictures of the swords in this period show some to be rough and jagged not smooth, but I've had a hard time finding references to the manufacture. In GERMANIC WARRIOR AD 236-568 Osprey-- there is a reference to 'pattern welded blades...made by iron twisted together, hammered, cut up, then recombined." Being stereotypically true to my gender, I'm not quite sure what the "recombined" process entails, but I'm asking if a true steel sword existed in the 5th century and in Domitian's time first century. I've been reading a historical novel set in 81 CE under Domitian and the Roman soldiers have steel swords and shields that resonate a clang upon impact. I realize it's fiction but I pay attention to these details. Are there any weapons experts available to comment?

Please include me in the prize drawing. Cinzia

The Light Bearer is an awesome book. The detail is amazing and the plot keeps you going despite the length. I read Steven Saylor, he is a gifted storyteller and I'm a fan of Quo Vadis. Pillars of the Earth by Caldwell also excellent despite its age. Has anyone read Island of Ghosts, something like this? I've been meaning to look for it. I heard this was good and deals with Sarmatians in Roman times. I've read Under the Eagle by Scarrow and liked it. I also read the Secundus Papyrus by Noyer, which is 5th century and closer to my heart and really enjoyed the mystery and the husband-wife team physicians as ancient detectives.

That depends. If the 'knights' were sarmatian cavalry in Britain then it might not be quite right, but at least preserves the correct feel. Certainly the helmets were wrong since they were old fashioned attic-style jobs which had gone out of use centuries before and even then reserved for ceremonial use. If the theory about sarmatians is wrong (and I believe it is, since foreign horsemen are not mentioned in the sources of the period and this theory seems to be merely an attempt to reconcile history with medieval fiction) then no, the image is hopel;essly wrong. The only possible guides to the corrct appearance of dark age Romano-British cavalry are archaeology and contemporary literature. I included a possible description of the Romano-British army at the battle of Mons Badonicus gathered from welsh poetry of four or five hundred years afterward, but there's little to guide us apart from that tradition. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10750 Thanks. My Romans are in Gaul going against the Huns in 450CE. I've a character who is an equite. It was hard to find a Roman cavalry group name for that specific time period, so I made one up. When I describe the tribunes, I would like to paint an accurate physical description. However, the public does seem to have a fixed notion on what a Roman soldier looks like. So, maybe a plume here or there won't hurt. :-) I did order the book you suggested, so I'll see what that has to offer. I'm a bit safe in that my story is fiction and an author can also add a "historical note." I must say that I prefer accuracy, but from what I've encountered in my writers group is that the tendency to think that Rome never changed past Caesar is strong. Cinzia

I'm looking for some resources (on line or book that is 5th century specific) that would give me an idea of the type of armor a 5th century tribune in the cavalry would wear. For example would a helmet still have the red plume at the top? Is it referred to technically as a plume. I believe a centurion's would not, but what about a commanding officer? Cinzia

I'm a fan of the Frank "Long-hairs" they built the Merovingian empire that created France. They were tough, ruthless and unrelenting.

My first response is that writing in ancient times, even letters, was always intended for an audience of more than a few people. The only writing I can think of that approaches journal writing with references to private topics: moods, culpability, remorse, self-questioning, trivia of daily life, is the Confessions of St. Augustine, on the eve of the medieval period. I'm sure others will have sources for you. "Dear Diary, It's nine o'clock, the children are fast asleep, and I'm going over these latest accounts from Trajan's Market before I hit the sack." Ancient people didn't conceive of their world or of themselves in this way. True, plus in ancient times the writing materials were expensive so it isn't likely to be wasted on writing a diary. Thanks for the insight. I never thought about the ready supply of writing materials, nor the expense. I do know a Roman detective who agrees with you. He shared the same thoughts with me this week. I might have to rely on the "fiction" aspect of my story. However, my heroine is wealthy.

cimtilheiaylnner is my legal name scrambled and I'm a female. I'm curious because I'm writing a historical set in the 5th century and I can always use good names. Also, I'm open to any Goth, Frank and Visigoth names. Dark Lord might be a bit unbelievable, but I might be able to squeak by with Darcamir or Luthdarc, Darcaveche. <g>