Writing a novel, want your input

[Neoflash]

Hi,

 

I'm in the planning and research stage of writing a novel set in Ancient Rome. I have some ideas as to plot and characters but I'm having a really hard time deciding in which period to set the story. I'd like you to give me your opinion on which year or period you think would be the best.

 

To give you an idea of the theme, I'm planning to write a series of books following a protagonist going up the cursus honorum. Basically, I want it to be something like the Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series of books but set in ancient Rome. Much like Jack Ryan, my protagonist will start his political journey at the bottom of the food chain with very little interest in becoming a politician; but his patriotism and sense of duty kind of pushes him up the public service ladder nonetheless. Like Ryan, my protagonist will be from humble origins but will have made money and is now independantly wealthy. From one book to the next he will deal with different national/political/military/security crises and work his way up to consul. Each book will cover no more that a 12 month period and I'm looking for the total series to cover around 20 years of roman history. The question is, which 20 year period in all of Roman history do you feel will provide the ideal backdrop for a military/political/Tom-Clancy-like thriller? and why?

 

I have pretty much decided that I want the books to be set in republican times rather than imperial time but if you feel otherwise please tell me why.

 

Your input is much appreciated.

[Primus Pilus]

Any period could technically provide the political/military/environmental background necessary to make your novel work, but you are most likely to appeal to a larger audience by sticking to those periods that carry the most common awareness. The problem there is that the more commonly known something is, the less artistic license you have to work with as far as major ancillary characters. You have to weigh out what's important and intriguing to you as the writer.

 

Common appeal, or greater flexibility. I'm not saying that an era such as the Late Republic/Early Empire doesn't allow for artistry and flexibility, just that you would have less pressure to fill historical figures into more commonly defined roles than a more obscure era of the earlier Republic or middle Empire.

[Neoflash]

Any period could technically provide the political/military/environmental background necessary to make your novel work, but you are most likely to appeal to a larger audience by sticking to those periods that carry the most common awareness. The problem there is that the more commonly known something is, the less artistic license you have to work with as far as major ancillary characters. You have to weigh out what's important and intriguing to you as the writer.

 

Common appeal, or greater flexibility. I'm not saying that an era such as the Late Republic/Early Empire doesn't allow for artistry and flexibility, just that you would have less pressure to fill historical figures into more commonly defined roles than a more obscure era of the earlier Republic or middle Empire.

 

Thanks for the input. I agree with your assessment. What do you think of 107 BC as a starting point for the first book. The Marian Reforms, the Jugurthine War, growing political strife; I think it would be a good starting point. Here is what I like about it: A great leader, Marius, who somewhat defies the status quo (changes the army and runs for consul 6 times over a period of 8 years, technically against the law), the birth and early career of better known Romans like Cicero, Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Ceasar, The Social War... Damn, I think I've got it. It would cover another period than the usual 50BC-200CE so often used in novels and movies but it is close enough to it so that the reader won't be too disoriented. What do you think?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, N

What do you think of 107 BC as a starting point for the first book. The Marian Reforms, the Jugurthine War, growing political strife; I think it would be a good starting point. Here is what I like about it: A great leader, Marius, who somewhat defies the status quo (changes the army and runs for consul 6 times over a period of 8 years, technically against the law), the birth and early career of better known Romans like Cicero, Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Ceasar, The Social War... Damn, I think I've got it. It would cover another period than the usual 50BC-200CE so often used in novels and movies but it is close enough to it so that the reader won't be too disoriented. What do you think?

DCXLVII AUC / 107 BC sounds great to me; your more pertinent primary sources should be Appianus of Alexandria (Bellum Civili I), Mestrius Plutarchus ( Marius & Sulla), Caius Sallustius Crispus (De Bello Iugurthino) and Marcus Tullius Cicero (lot of letters), to begin with. You will find here at UNRV multiple references on secondary and tertiary sources. Good luck and make us know about your progress.

[Primus Pilus]

Any period could technically provide the political/military/environmental background necessary to make your novel work, but you are most likely to appeal to a larger audience by sticking to those periods that carry the most common awareness. The problem there is that the more commonly known something is, the less artistic license you have to work with as far as major ancillary characters. You have to weigh out what's important and intriguing to you as the writer.

 

Common appeal, or greater flexibility. I'm not saying that an era such as the Late Republic/Early Empire doesn't allow for artistry and flexibility, just that you would have less pressure to fill historical figures into more commonly defined roles than a more obscure era of the earlier Republic or middle Empire.

 

Thanks for the input. I agree with your assessment. What do you think of 107 BC as a starting point for the first book. The Marian Reforms, the Jugurthine War, growing political strife; I think it would be a good starting point. Here is what I like about it: A great leader, Marius, who somewhat defies the status quo (changes the army and runs for consul 6 times over a period of 8 years, technically against the law), the birth and early career of better known Romans like Cicero, Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Ceasar, The Social War... Damn, I think I've got it. It would cover another period than the usual 50BC-200CE so often used in novels and movies but it is close enough to it so that the reader won't be too disoriented. What do you think?

 

It's a quite well known era among Romanophiles... essentially your target audience... but no as overwhelmingly as the the later era you mention. You're walking a middle ground here, able to appeal with an in intriguing and moderately known era, while remaining obscure enough (at least to the layman) to allow creativity.

[Lanista]

Whatever period you chose, it sounds like a cracking concept with plenty of mileage. Are you planning a series to take "Ryanus" through his career (so the soldier years, the making it big and entering poltics years and so forth) or just a single work. In either event, it sounds like something I'd read for sure. The character concept is great and strong enough to carry any period, I reckon. Even late empire, which is often overlooked. Things were going pear-shaped then, but some strong leaders did emerge to stem back the tide of barbarism...

 

Looking forward to reading the adventures of Ryanus, man. Get cracking!

 

Cheers

 

Russ

[caldrail]

I would stress certain things if a 'Tom Clancy' approach is being followed.

 

1 - The Romans had no national army. Each Legion was a mini-army in its own right, not a regiment.

 

2 - Although disputed, there's no reason to assume that the roman rank system worked the same way as our modern one.

 

3 - Careers for ordinary soldiers weren't commonplace - it wasn't expected an ordinary grunt would rise above his station, and it would literally take 15-20 years for a man to ascend to the centurionate even after the Marian Reforms.

 

4 - Although subject to harsh discipline, the roman army was often less than loyal, with considerable gripes and in later years, willingness to mutiny to suit themselves.

 

5 - The legionaries, particularly in the later professional era, were strongly close-knit, a deliberate plocy to induce reamwork. The frequently refer to each other as 'Brother'.

 

6 - The Legions provided employment and security, but its members were not exactly behaving responsibly off duty, prone to violence, bullying, and outright theft at swordpoint if it suited them. Legal recourse was difficult and the civilian concerned might well fail to impress a military tribunal, and perhaps get beaten by the aggrieved soldiers mates for his trouble.

 

7 - The quality of swords was an important issue for legionaries, since they paid for them either through stoppages or by private purchase.

 

8 - Prior to Augustus, legionaries were 'brothers'. From his reign onward, they were 'soldiers'.

 

9 - The training described by Vegetius was an ideal situation. Not all legionaries received this rounded education. Caesar for instance had to deliberately find or train horsemen to complement his infantry from among them. Vegetius assumes this training was standard.

 

10 - Roman legions of the professional era always attempted to meet an enemy charge at the advance, for morale.

 

11 - Roman soldiers were taught to remain silent, to hear instructions.

 

12 - The oft=-quoted rotation of troops in the fighting line is difficult in practice, bearing in mind rough ground, bodies, or pools of slippery blood. A centurion for instance is described slipping over on flagstones as he charged the defenders of Masada.

 

13 - The roman leaders encouraged bravery and selfless action. {i]Coronae[/i] were awarded for things like being the first man through a breach (and surviving).

 

14 - Roman troops, despite their reputation, might easily become lazy. Josephus records how a suprise zealot attack caught legionaries away from their equipment. Manual labour was desirable to keep troops busy and prevent mischief.

 

15 - There's a continual view expressed on the invincibility of the legions. This is not so, they were defeated often enough, and much depended on the quality of leadership - something the average soldier was aware of judging by mutinies and imperial nominations.

 

16 - The legions were corrupt. Bribery was commonplace, although efforts were made to eradicate it.

 

17 - Chainmail is suprisingly heavy, the banded cuirass just as much so. Helmets aren't lightweight either. Pila, the roman javelin, aren't especially heavy although at times the romans experimented with extra weights attached to them. The Gladius, or sword, varies in pattern from time to time. The earlier ones with a longer point were better balanced and used almost exclusively in a stabbing attack ideally thrust an inch into the enemies face or stomach - a debilitating would was as good as a kill. Later shorter pointed straight swords (appearing from Claudius onward) were less well balanced but more often used in a hacking attack, hence the need for balance was less important.

 

Hope this helps, and there's plenty of other info from differing viewpoints in the forums. Good luck with your story.

[Neoflash]

Whatever period you chose, it sounds like a cracking concept with plenty of mileage. Are you planning a series to take "Ryanus" through his career (so the soldier years, the making it big and entering poltics years and so forth) or just a single work. In either event, it sounds like something I'd read for sure. The character concept is great and strong enough to carry any period, I reckon. Even late empire, which is often overlooked. Things were going pear-shaped then, but some strong leaders did emerge to stem back the tide of barbarism...

 

Looking forward to reading the adventures of Ryanus, man. Get cracking!

 

Cheers

 

Russ

 

I'm planning a series of books to take Ryanus (although I think I might choose a different name for the protagonist) through his career (cursus honorum), starting in the fisrt book at the position of military tribune. Right now I'm thinking that I could use the roman name Nephele came up for me and the little background story she came up with as a starting point for building the character (http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4743&pid=89004&st=660entry89004), what do you think?

 

The current vision is that the story could begin in mid-late 107BC, on a boat crossing the Mediterranean, the protagonist, a military tribune (perhaps newly appointed), is making the trip to Africa with the consul Marius in order to wage war against Jugurtha. I

[Neoflash]

I would stress certain things if a 'Tom Clancy' approach is being followed.

 

1 - The Romans had no national army. Each Legion was a mini-army in its own right, not a regiment.

 

2 - Although disputed, there's no reason to assume that the roman rank system worked the same way as our modern one.

 

3 - Careers for ordinary soldiers weren't commonplace - it wasn't expected an ordinary grunt would rise above his station, and it would literally take 15-20 years for a man to ascend to the centurionate even after the Marian Reforms.

 

4 - Although subject to harsh discipline, the roman army was often less than loyal, with considerable gripes and in later years, willingness to mutiny to suit themselves.

 

5 - The legionaries, particularly in the later professional era, were strongly close-knit, a deliberate plocy to induce reamwork. The frequently refer to each other as 'Brother'.

 

6 - The Legions provided employment and security, but its members were not exactly behaving responsibly off duty, prone to violence, bullying, and outright theft at swordpoint if it suited them. Legal recourse was difficult and the civilian concerned might well fail to impress a military tribunal, and perhaps get beaten by the aggrieved soldiers mates for his trouble.

 

7 - The quality of swords was an important issue for legionaries, since they paid for them either through stoppages or by private purchase.

 

8 - Prior to Augustus, legionaries were 'brothers'. From his reign onward, they were 'soldiers'.

 

9 - The training described by Vegetius was an ideal situation. Not all legionaries received this rounded education. Caesar for instance had to deliberately find or train horsemen to complement his infantry from among them. Vegetius assumes this training was standard.

 

10 - Roman legions of the professional era always attempted to meet an enemy charge at the advance, for morale.

 

11 - Roman soldiers were taught to remain silent, to hear instructions.

 

12 - The oft=-quoted rotation of troops in the fighting line is difficult in practice, bearing in mind rough ground, bodies, or pools of slippery blood. A centurion for instance is described slipping over on flagstones as he charged the defenders of Masada.

 

13 - The roman leaders encouraged bravery and selfless action. {i]Coronae[/i] were awarded for things like being the first man through a breach (and surviving).

 

14 - Roman troops, despite their reputation, might easily become lazy. Josephus records how a suprise zealot attack caught legionaries away from their equipment. Manual labour was desirable to keep troops busy and prevent mischief.

 

15 - There's a continual view expressed on the invincibility of the legions. This is not so, they were defeated often enough, and much depended on the quality of leadership - something the average soldier was aware of judging by mutinies and imperial nominations.

 

16 - The legions were corrupt. Bribery was commonplace, although efforts were made to eradicate it.

 

17 - Chainmail is suprisingly heavy, the banded cuirass just as much so. Helmets aren't lightweight either. Pila, the roman javelin, aren't especially heavy although at times the romans experimented with extra weights attached to them. The Gladius, or sword, varies in pattern from time to time. The earlier ones with a longer point were better balanced and used almost exclusively in a stabbing attack ideally thrust an inch into the enemies face or stomach - a debilitating would was as good as a kill. Later shorter pointed straight swords (appearing from Claudius onward) were less well balanced but more often used in a hacking attack, hence the need for balance was less important.

 

Hope this helps, and there's plenty of other info from differing viewpoints in the forums. Good luck with your story.

 

Wow, that is awesome. Thanks for your input. I want to make the book as historically accurate as possible, but I may decide to portray certain aspects or roman life in the light of roman ideals rather than absolute factual historical truths. Although I tend to lean on the historical accuracy side, this being a fictional novel, I willu se a bit of romanticizing (no pun intended) to balance things out and fabricate an interesting plot and lively characters.

[Lanista]

I want to make the book as historically accurate as possible, but I may decide to portray certain aspects or roman life in the light of roman ideals rather than absolute factual historical truths. Although I tend to lean on the historical accuracy side, this being a fictional novel, I willu se a bit of romanticizing (no pun intended) to balance things out and fabricate an interesting plot and lively characters.

 

That's a wise policy to have - as you say, it's a novel, not a text book and sometimes you have to make choices that aren't strictly accurate but move the plot along. When I was writing "Gladiatrix" I decided that I would have them fight in non-traditional pairs because I felt that it would be more entertaining for the casual reader. Also, I figured that they might play faster and looser with gladiatorial pairings in the provinces (or else where did these exotic fighting styles come from - essidarius, dimachaearius *I can never spell that on the fly* and so forth), so that was my excuse and I'm still sticking to it.

 

This is not to say that you should fly in the face of all that's accurate (unless you're writing a historical fantasy like Conn Iggulden), but certainly you shouldn't feel constrained to portraying absolute truth at all times. If it's an entertaining read, little shifts and changes are easily forgiven and over-looked...Take Donna Gillespie's "The Light Bearer," probably the greatest historical fiction novel of the late 20th Century - she calls the Flavian Amphitheatre "The Colosseum", even though it was not called that during Domitian's reign. She knows that, I know that, everyone on this forum knows that. But the average reader might not, so its more expedient to call it by the common name.

 

People can get too wrapped up in historical accuracy - it's important, but its the making or breaking of a good book!

 

Cheers

 

 

Russ

[ASCLEPIADES]

The current vision is that the story could begin in mid-late 107BC, on a boat crossing the Mediterranean, the protagonist, a military tribune (perhaps newly appointed), is making the trip to Africa with the consul Marius in order to wage war against Jugurtha. I

[Neoflash]

The current vision is that the story could begin in mid-late 107BC, on a boat crossing the Mediterranean, the protagonist, a military tribune (perhaps newly appointed), is making the trip to Africa with the consul Marius in order to wage war against Jugurtha. I

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thanks for the link to the "Dictionnary of Greek and Roman Antiquities", I had no idea you could get free access to that stuff. This fact prompted me to research other free sources and I stumbled upon the "Le Dictionnaire des Antiquit

[Ursus]

I have an excellent idea for a novel.

 

Hero is a bad boy. Heroine is a good girl. Good girl falls in love with bad boy after sniping at him desperately for most of the novel.

 

Heroine gets captured by Evil Guy. Hero rescues heroine, defeats evil guy, and saves the world.

 

Hero has a comic side kick. Evil guy has an idiotic henchman.

 

This formula is revolutionary, but I think it may work.

[Neoflash]

I have an excellent idea for a novel.

 

Hero is a bad boy. Heroine is a good girl. Good girl falls in love with bad boy after sniping at him desperately for most of the novel.

 

Heroine gets captured by Evil Guy. Hero rescues heroine, defeats evil guy, and saves the world.

 

Hero has a comic side kick. Evil guy has an idiotic henchman.

 

This formula is revolutionary, but I think it may work.

 

I don't know Ursus... I think your idea is just too wild. I really don't think the world is ready for such literary innovations. But what the heck, if you write it, I'll read it.