WIN!!! Legio17: Roman Legion at War

[Legio17]

UPDATE by UNRV.com:

Win a free download of Legio XVII: Roman Legion at War, comment or asks the author a question below

and stand a chance to download it for free Legio XVII: Roman Legion at War

##############################################################

 

The purpose of this post is to tell you about an historical fiction ebook I just published, "LegioXVII: Roman Legion at War" and why I think you may be interested in reading it.  First, I want to mention that this is my first post here, but I have been a fan of UNRV for the last four years.  I used it extensively during my research.

 

Why the book?  I wanted to create an image of Leg XVII beside that of Teutoburg Forest!  I first heard about 9 AD way back in 1960 and found it unsettling.  How did this disaster happen?  Fifty years later, I think we all pretty well know how it happened: poor Roman leadership and a very clever adversary.  Leg XVII only existed for 50 years.  It was never reconstituted after 9 AD.  My book gives the Legion a history that takes place during the 2nd Punic War, but is not involved with Hannibal.

 

Another reason I wrote the book is because I felt I had something unique to add.  Now I love ancient battles as much as anyone, but, in addition to battle scenes, I wanted to describe the intense planning that underlies a successful outcome.  To do this, I drew on my 28 year active duty career in the U.S. Army where I served at the platoon, company, battalion, and brigade level.  I was also in the Pentagon for 24 years as a staff officer and civilian on the Army Staff, the Joint Staff, and Office of the Secretary of Defense.  Operational and tactical level planning has been my life.

 

In the book, I tried to be historically accurate concerning the 2nd Punic war and with my characters.  Any errors are unintentional.  Let me know what you think!  I'd appreciate your perspective.    

Hi UNRV, I am the author of "Legio XVII: Roman Legion at War."  Here's the current status of the book.  All along, I said to myself that simply counting the number of books sold is not my personal goal or measure of success.  Rather, I thought I had a story to tell and the ability to add a planning perspective to the story not usually found in Roman battle books.  If I could do those two things, I would consider the book a success.  The book is selling quite well thanks, in large part, to UNRV, but more importantly, I'm getting good feedback on the substance of the book, which is even better.  There is one items that has bothered me a lot.  Readers have reported finding editing errors such as a "build" instead of "built" and "keep" instead of "kept."  To fix this "turn off," I just had someone scrub the book yet again and have made several additional fixes.  I believe it is now free of those pesky and distracting errors.  I apologize to those readers who found them and were discouraged.  For my next book, "Legio XVII: Battle of the Danube River," I will hire a professional editor from the get go!  Thank you for your interest and continued success to UNRV!      

Edited July 28, 2014 by Legio17

[Viggen]

...awesome!

 

thanks for the feedback

 

cheers

viggen

[Onasander]

Yeah, I first started reading it last night, found four mistakes, like Goggle Maps.... but whatever, it is what it is.

 

What happened to Carthage for book two?

[Legio17]

Yeah, I first started reading it last night, found four mistakes, like Goggle Maps.... but whatever, it is what it is.

 

What happened to Carthage for book two?

Onasander, thank you for your tolerant attitude, which I hope you can sustain because you will probably discover more editing issue as you continue reading. I know edits can be a real turn off.  Not that it will do you any good at the moment, but the latest version (republished a few days ago) should be clear of any problems.  I will be happy to send you another coupon to get the newest version.  I imagine many new ebook authors think they're good enough to do the editing themselves and save a few bucks.  Impossible!  Too close to the forest.

My book two is underway, but only touches on the 2nd Punic War: defeat of Mago in northern Italy and perhaps Zama, depending on the length of the book.  The focus of book two is the migration of the Teuton/Cimbri Tribes out of the Jutland Peninsula through Germania to the Danube River.  Legio XVII, joined by Legio XVIII, the Rhaetian Tribe and the Suevi (the same tribe Legio XVII defeats in book one) are given the mission to push the Teuton/Cimbri back across the Danube River.

I made a conscious decision to use Google Maps to enable the reader to place the battle site in relation to modern cities.  Ancient maps are interesting to look at, but can make it difficult to pinpoint the battle site in the modern world.

please let me know if you would like another coupon.  Best regards! 

[Onasander]

I had Apraxia, and my spelling never quite has come out correctly myself. It would be silly of me to judge negatively.

 

I haven't gotten that far into it, rarely read fiction these days, and yours is the first historic fiction I've read since Ivanhoe.... I have a fear of the underlining ontology of fiction writers writing on strategy or warfare is going to mess with my understanding unconsciously.... I'm getting rather good at predicting the course and methods used in wars.... I explain what will happen on philosophy sites at the very start, and with minor differences at best, it happens that way. Been covering the current Iraq ISIS campaign.... pissed alot of people off.

 

I only trusted your work given your background. Like I said, I don't like fantasy to get mixed up.

 

One thing I noted was in your book the initial battle was "taken" from a manuscript parchment discovered on a dig, taken from the perspective of the losing (Roman) side.

 

It would be interesting, if you do it in this book or the next, find some fragments for a appendix of a greek historian who was captured by a barbarian tribe, who knew of the Roman reputation, and yet somehow came to the conclusion it was a swell idea to invade Italy anyway..... and what they made sense of regarding roman tactics and strategy up to the battle, why they stuck through it while losing, and how they felt psychologically afterwards making sense of it.

 

Right now, ISIS in Iraq has lost it's momentum, is losing along three fronts, systemmatic attacks on any gatherings or convoy movements.... yet they still go on the offensive, despite losing a tenth of their total claimed forces the last few days.

 

They are routing everywhere, but many are still like "No, this is a swell Idea, lets jump into a death trap and die like martyrs..... yippee". And they do just that.

 

It makes sense to me what the Iraqi gov is doing, I can explain the underlining neurology that makes ISIS what it is, and in one sense can predict them..... but there is this severe sense of disbelief in knowing even in the best of times, this was the inevitable direction they were heading, just how on earth could their lead commanders not know it too? Why go forward with a losing strategy....

 

Its a factor of mystification on my part. Everything in the west is aimed at studying the mistakes of the past, and how to overcone friction with very low lost of manpower.... I imagine one in a while colonels and generals talking in conference must one in a while just pause.... get existentialist, blink a few times and begin to have serious questioning doubts as to the enemies grasp of awareness and underlining insanity of their actions. It hurts my faith in humanity sometimes. Human beings shouldn't be that stupid, no matter what side they are on.

 

I wonder if Roman commanders thought the same waiting for bandit hordes to come strolling out of the Alps for the umpteenth time..... concepts like discipline, honor, heroics fade away..... and your just looking at these gleeful fools numbly, walking into anbush. Afterwards, just staring at their warchief, your counterpart in their force wincing in a cage..... trying to find that which is you in them..... do they comprehend? Have they figured it out? Or is it just a hamster on a wheel running around in their head, completely oblivious to the underlining nature of events that lead to his loss and capture.

[Legio17]

I had Apraxia, and my spelling never quite has come out correctly myself. It would be silly of me to judge negatively.

 

I haven't gotten that far into it, rarely read fiction these days, and yours is the first historic fiction I've read since Ivanhoe.... I have a fear of the underlining ontology of fiction writers writing on strategy or warfare is going to mess with my understanding unconsciously.... I'm getting rather good at predicting the course and methods used in wars.... I explain what will happen on philosophy sites at the very start, and with minor differences at best, it happens that way. Been covering the current Iraq ISIS campaign.... pissed alot of people off.

 

I only trusted your work given your background. Like I said, I don't like fantasy to get mixed up.

 

One thing I noted was in your book the initial battle was "taken" from a manuscript parchment discovered on a dig, taken from the perspective of the losing (Roman) side.

 

It would be interesting, if you do it in this book or the next, find some fragments for a appendix of a greek historian who was captured by a barbarian tribe, who knew of the Roman reputation, and yet somehow came to the conclusion it was a swell idea to invade Italy anyway..... and what they made sense of regarding roman tactics and strategy up to the battle, why they stuck through it while losing, and how they felt psychologically afterwards making sense of it.

 

Right now, ISIS in Iraq has lost it's momentum, is losing along three fronts, systemmatic attacks on any gatherings or convoy movements.... yet they still go on the offensive, despite losing a tenth of their total claimed forces the last few days.

 

They are routing everywhere, but many are still like "No, this is a swell Idea, lets jump into a death trap and die like martyrs..... yippee". And they do just that.

 

It makes sense to me what the Iraqi gov is doing, I can explain the underlining neurology that makes ISIS what it is, and in one sense can predict them..... but there is this severe sense of disbelief in knowing even in the best of times, this was the inevitable direction they were heading, just how on earth could their lead commanders not know it too? Why go forward with a losing strategy....

 

Its a factor of mystification on my part. Everything in the west is aimed at studying the mistakes of the past, and how to overcone friction with very low lost of manpower.... I imagine one in a while colonels and generals talking in conference must one in a while just pause.... get existentialist, blink a few times and begin to have serious questioning doubts as to the enemies grasp of awareness and underlining insanity of their actions. It hurts my faith in humanity sometimes. Human beings shouldn't be that stupid, no matter what side they are on.

 

I wonder if Roman commanders thought the same waiting for bandit hordes to come strolling out of the Alps for the umpteenth time..... concepts like discipline, honor, heroics fade away..... and your just looking at these gleeful fools numbly, walking into anbush. Afterwards, just staring at their warchief, your counterpart in their force wincing in a cage..... trying to find that which is you in them..... do they comprehend? Have they figured it out? Or is it just a hamster on a wheel running around in their head, completely oblivious to the underlining nature of events that lead to his loss and capture.

Onasander, some pretty deep thinking!  I researched Apraxia.  Glad you are able to refer to it in the past tense.  Sure hasn't affected your ability to think and analyze.  I can understand what you said about getting a concept about a particular topic reasoned out in your thinking and concern that a false or untested related concept will undo everything.  That concern can apply to most topics: religion, geometry, strategy, tactics.  In the military, the maxim is two up and one back (reserve force).  Scipio introduced something new in Africa, which must have really upset the traditionalists.  He used the Triarii within the Triplex Acies as a separate maneuver element.  Your observations about persisting on with a losing strategy despite serious set backs is interesting and so human.  No more space!

Edited August 1, 2014 by Legio17

[Legio17]

Onasander, a few more thoughts, if I may.  History is replete with commanders who continue to repeat the same failed tactics.  Yes, the barbarian hordes, you mentioned, foolishly repeated the same mistakes and hoped for different results.  Cold Harbor in the Civil War.  At Kennesaw Mountain in Georgia, Sherman threw his troops against fortified confederate positions and failed.  In WWI, the Allies continued frontal assaults against the Germans and suffered horribly at the other end of machine gun barrels.  Sometime, we are slow to adapt.

Hannibal was famous for his surprises.  He employed "new" tactics during his first three engagements with the Romans: Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae, and was successful.  Eventually, the Romans adapted, borrowed Hannibal's concept of including a surprise, but mostly kept to the basics.

In my book, the basics are the main stay, but there are always a few Hannibalic surprises.  My book deals a lot with the mundane, but extremely important elements of logistics, troop morale and welfare, medical support, food and shelter, and training.  History tells us who fought, where (sometimes), and who won, but we rarely, if ever, listen in on the planning that takes place prior to the engagement.  That's the part I was going after.  How would a reasonable commander fight a particular battle.