Lanista

Then kudos to the J!

Being raised by Rome's own Gary Glitter couldn't have helped, but like Nero, Calligula was a bit of a rock-star at first. Of course, it went pearshaped in the end, but as others have said, both Emperors really got a lot of bad press, but I think in this case I think whatever psychological shackles he'd placed on his traumatic upbringing were broken after his illness and led to mania. Still, he did some cool things. Making horse a senator was a touch, and let's face it, the horse could do a better job than most of our politicians.

That's a fair and balanced review of this book, Viggen. Eagle in the snow - Once read, never forgotten- its a great, great novel. Kudos for your approach to this work, mate - I enjoyed reading your take on it. Cheers Russ

In response to: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?s=&amp...ost&p=99704 Hi Sylla... If I'm being honest, the thought of enticing new readers with this sort of thing never really occurred to me (but hey, if it works great, and I'm hugely grateful that you're even interested!). That truly was a twilight zone moment - I had just typed it and thought - I'll have a look at UNRV, and there was the comment. And previously, Nephele had offered up a HUGE list of possible gladiatorial names which I duly used as a resource - or stole if she's going to sue me...). Really, its taking me so long to write the damn thing that if it ever comes out, everyone will have forgotten this thread anyway. The truth is that only way I can say "thanks" to people who have helped me with writing the book is to put them in it (and kill them in the bloodiest manner possible) - it must be fun to read a passage in the bookshop and snigger to yourself thinking "that's me, that is." Well, I hope it is - of course, I've mentioned UNRV as a whole in the acknowledgements of this book too, so if it does get into print at least ten more people will know about the forum.... I'll try to take your points here, though. Aemilia Illeana is her "real" name and I guess she's really the antagonist. That said, when I write this stuff, I try not to have goodies and baddies for the most part. Her fighting name is Aesalon Nocturna - the Midnight Falcon. I called her this to honour the late, great David Gemmell who was one of my favourite writers (ever - I loved that man, even though I never met him!). She's the current Arena Regina (heh - I like that, though I don't use it the book) in Rome and has taken this Pyrrha under her wing as a bit of a side project - I have it that the autocrati tiros like Pyrrha don't get to fight in the Flavian at first, but are sent out to the countryside to blood themselves in smaller-scale fights before stepping up to the premier league, so to speak. No, there isn't a female amphitheatre or anything like that. I try to keep it real in the sense that no matter how good the female fighters are, they're not the main event (mostly, though I'm going to cling to the spurious "by torchlight" reference for this book). And no, not everyone is thraex. I pair different types of gladiatrices (gladiatrixes - I can't make my mind up) against each other all the time, and they're not always classical pairings. I know this annoys scholars, but not everyone that reads the book will be a scholar and I like the variety. Conversely, how much do we know about female gladiators - not a lot save from the Halicarnassus frieze (ok, that is a classical pairing) and vague references (Medusa is really the expert on this stuff and has written some brilliant articles on here and her own site). I figure that if the gladiatrix bouts weren't taken seriously then the same rules wouldn't apply - I mean, if they're going to send them up against pygmies I'm sure the mob isn't going to get cross when you have the non-classical female pairings. We have all these amazing gladiator types...dimachaerius, scissorius, paegniarius and so forth, I say lets some of them (and, on that note, why do we have all this different types? I read somewhere that in the provinces the rules were off too and that's where these styles were developed). Historical accuracy is important of course and I try to keep it real much of the time but there's always going to be dramatic license: at the end of the day, I'm writing a fiction...almost historical fantasy some would say (and have said - reading your reviews is good for the humility let me tell you!). Women in the story have more freedom than was likely and I consciously downplay the "downtrodden, hellish life of the arena" side of things (and thanks, Discovery Channel, recent finds in Ephesus are saying that it wasn't as a bad as we've been led to believe for many of the fighters). What I didn't want to do in either book was re-tread "Spartacus" with a female who hated her lot and wanted to overthrow the Roman empire and all that. What I have is a bunch of professional athletes who kill each other...I guess its more "Rocky IV" than "Gladiator" in some respects *lol* Hope that hasn't totally put you off reading it now, though... Cheers Russ

She's about to wreak right now - its a bit of a twilight zone moment cos I just typed this "Audacia strode out from the Gate of Life, her arms raised aloft. She was a thraex, armed with short sword and shield. Illeana studied her and was impressed. She was well-muscled and heavier than Pyrra, her defined physique demonstrating hard-training and her gait oozing confidence. The crowd hooted, always enthusiastic at the sight of female flesh

Thanks, man! :-)

Am I to presume that there will be a Nephele/Audacia gladiatrix in your next novel, Lanista? Hot stuff! If she has to die, then I hope she dies after wreaking much havoc and bloodshed. -- Audacia a.k.a. Nephele She's about to wreak right now - its a bit of a twilight zone moment cos I just typed this "Audacia strode out from the Gate of Life, her arms raised aloft. She was a thraex, armed with short sword and shield. Illeana studied her and was impressed. She was well-muscled and heavier than Pyrra, her defined physique demonstrating hard-training and her gait oozing confidence. The crowd hooted, always enthusiastic at the sight of female flesh

Simon's dialogue was a conscious decision on his part - he wanted to make the reader feel that these were real soldiers after all, so the shouting and swearing is all part of that. It adds realism, I think. I particularly like the "I'm not a fucking arse-bandit" line when Macro is approaching Cato about a difficult issue (no spoilers, you'll know when you see it). Has to be the best Roman historical series of the last 30 years, I reckon. I can't honestly think of anyone to match the consistency in this genre. Lindsey Davis, Steven Saylor et al are mystery novels, after all, but Scarrow pulls out book after book that are all brilliant action-adventure. Each time a new one comes out, it makes you want to go back and re-read the whole series again so you can start the new one with all that back story. And, because the books are so eminently readable, you can tear through them (as you are finding) so the wait isn't too long. All that said, he's been criticised for the dialogue and swearing in some quarters. On the other hand, some quarters are always going to criticise: to state the obvious, the enjoyment of fiction is a very subjective thing. Talking of fiction, I'm off to kill Nephele. Sorry, "Audacia." Cheers Russ

Just a small point - and I stand to be corrected on this - wasn't Thebes destroyed by Alexander the Great (apart from Pindar's gaff).

I'm guessing by ship - I had to transport a character from Asia Minor to Italy and a ship can do - on average - about 100 miles a day (I got that from Rome on x Sesterces a day - I forgot the author now, but the book's reviewed on this site). Cheers Russ

I watch in wonder as Nephele single-handedly casts the "expendables" in Gladiatrix II. Thanks, Neph! Russ

I'd just use the ones from the 90s TV show. Is there a latin word for Jet - she was lovely. And Lightning wasn't bad either. And then there was Sharon Davis as Amazon. Happy days. http://www.gladiatorszone.co.uk/gladiators/female/

Isn't there some reference to the javelins and arrows not being that effective due to the "hedge of spears"? I seem to remember reading that somewhere. I've been reading a book recently on Hellenistic warfare and the truth is that luck seemed to play a huge part in these engagements - usually for the Romans and against the Macedonians. Cyconsephale is a good example of this - what started out as a minor scuffle suddenly turned into a full scale battle. It does expose the lack flexibility in the macedonian formations of the time, but even so. Even the most ardent Romanophile won't be able to deny the roll of the dice in these engagements...but - Fortune favours the brave I guess. This is the book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Battles-Hell...9762&sr=8-1 but it's a bit harsh of the reviewers to claim its for wargamers only. Its a light read for the militarially inclined! Cheers Russ

Centurion isn't the last one in the series, Macro. "The Gladiator" came out the other day, so more macro and cato for you. Cheers Russ

I replied to this and it vanished. I hate it when that happens. Yep, I'd have to agree with that take, makes sense to me. It's just a shame that no primary sources from his side survived. There would have been educated greek slaves in the ranks (many a roman employed the hellenes as teachers as we know) and someone must have been writing it all down. Though, given the grisly fate of those who survived the final battle, its likely any such accurate recordings were destoryed. Though - there's a concept for a contemporary novel right there. First-person POV by a greek slave. Michael Curtis Ford, come out of retirement - this one has your name on it! Cheers Russ

I liked Alexander - I think it's much maligned and often judged too harshly. I've got all the different "cuts" and each one offers a different perspective and I think the "Final" cut is by far the best. Of course, it's not a perfect movie - Colin Farrell tried so hard but somehow just didn't seem right. I've seen a documentary about what the bloke put himself through to perfect the role - it went beyond mere physical training and delved right into the psycological. He went through the wringer for sure and the work he did deserved more success. On the accents: I totally got that and though I'm a huge minority and thought it was a genius stroke. Using what would be considered by some as a more parochial accent to portray the Macedonians and using precise Shakespearean tones for the more cultured (effete?) Greeks, Stone cleverly illustrated the differences in the two cultures without having to use masses of exposition. On accuracy: Robin Lane Smith was happy enough to put his name to it and offer up several commentaries (which on epically long movies like these took some doing). Now there are some hideous examples of inaccuracy (Empire, though I love it, was really terrible), but Alexander made a good fist of it within the bounds of dramatic requirements, I thought. It's never going to be 100% right for a variety of reasons that have been discussed on here many times. As I say, the most jaring thing about the movie was Colin Farrell himself: I kept wishing that Jared Leto had been the lead - he seemed to have more the look about him. Farrell, if you think, would have been a fantastic Phillip. Or Kleitus the Black. Or Ptolemy even. Every time I rewatch the movie, I will him to fit better...but I though I hate to say it because I so admired what he did for the role, I just think he wasn't right for the role. Try watching one of the cuts again with a less historically critical eye and you'll find much to enjoy. Not least of all Angelina Jolie, who I could watch all day! Cheers Russ

look it up on google, there are lots of reviews and commentaries

The issue with old Spartacus is that the documented evidence is written by the Romans who were never going to be that nice about him. They couldn't even afford him an "honourable foe" status because he was a slave leading a slave army. Many Romanophiles don't like the fact that he evaded senatorial authority for a while and bested their vaunted military machine for a spell - but clearly he did as the written sources (through gritted teeth) will tell us. Of course, they'll also tell us that the troops he defeated were second rate and the slaves used dirty tricks to win. That's probably true, but then if Queens Park Rangers nick a late (and suspect off-side) winner against Man U in the FA Cup, who cares that it was Man U's second string team and the goal was offside. No one'll remember that, they'll only remember that a crap team beat a great team in the cup. Well, except the Man U fans who'll tell you about every nuance and why it was unfair that QPR won - which is what we get with Spartacus. Of course, there's a lot of myth surrounding the man thanks to Howard Fast's novel and more to Kubrick's movie which portray Spartacus as freedom fighter: I'm not convinced that this is the case. He was probably more of a survivalist with a penchant for rhetoric and guerilla warfare. I suspect when he sat in his tent some nights looking at the tens of thousands that had gravitated around him, he must of thought..."This is all getting a bit out of hand." Pity he never kept a diary! Cheers Russ

Eagle in the Snow by Wallace Breem is a classic.

I tend to agree, but many historians often wail and gnash their teeth at this sort of thing. Personally, I don't worry about the facts too much in these things - never let the facts get in the way of a good story is the mantra and, in some cases, why not? Lots of people love Braveheart (including the Academy) which is as far from the facts as you can get without including ninjas. Nah - it's all good for me. I'm fan, what can I tell ya... Cheers Russ

I blame Cif I'll get my coat.

http://scifiwire.com/2009/07/how-tvs-new-spartacus-wil.php

On arriving at the White Cliffs of Dover "My father's castle is in Nottingham. We should be there by nightfall." Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves