"Simon Scarrow's Pulp Fiction-esque Roman adventure is a win for me and nil for the bores"
Simon Scarrow use to be on the Goodreads author, but apparently after some embarrassing comments by a well known member he removed his account. After confirming this with the author, it rather made me think, really some people need to step back from the keyboard! An opinion is one thing, stupid is something else.
The year is 42AD - what a boring opening! Never start off with dates, it'll kill interest faster than you can speak!
Let's talk about Under The Eagle by Simon Scarrow. It's good, in a sort of balls-to-the-wall way. Having read this before, I knew what to expect. Blood, betrayal, lots of swearing and gladius slashing fun. With any historical novel, there's a fine line between historical accuracy and story-telling. Conn Iggulden, as much as I respect him for taking on Caesar is a fine example of bad story-telling set against historical accuracy (which in part is well researched). Simon Scarrow doesn't pretend to be 'historical accurate', yes it is accurate in the sense of being set within the reign of Claudius-I've-The-Mind-Of-A-Child-And-The-Eating-Habit-Of-A-Ox. Yes it is accurate given the timeline, the invasion of Britain was what solidified Claudius's Emperor-ship - without it, he would have been history (ironic).
Ok tangent there. What's the story about? Picture this, 42AD, Rome isn't doing too bad - yes it still stinks there, a mixture of sweat, people and shit - I swore, for which is common place in Rome with the rabble. Caligula has just been assassinated, Claudius is placed as Imperator and ruler of the Empire. He has to have a triumphant quickly, something that will enthor him to the plebeians and stop 'noble' daggers piecing him from the dark. Welcome to Germania - tales of several Legions being lost in a particular Rheine forest is common place here. A border has been established and in some respects the flow of the river is a natural wall that keeps the conflict from eschewing. More recruits are needed, so newly appointed Centurion Marco and the somewhat unusual appointment of Cato to his second-in-command 'Optio' begin the story. Well after a few harsh words from Centurion Bestia "You there, shut you're fucking mouth or I'll be spitting you on my gladius - you won't be smiling then will you book boy". Not all Roman's spoke like politicians of the day, some had to get down and fight the attritional battle that Rome was famous for. Think of the Legions as a meat grinder and everything the meat, you won't be far wrong.
While the new recruits get a daily dressing down, Vespasian, Legate of The Second Legion Augusta receives secret orders that a invasion of Britain will take place. This really begins the story and shoves you arse-first into a serious of events that are (at times) a bit too quick, From the skirmish with Germanic hordes, to plotters from Rome and with the Second Legion itself, things become a tad overawing you would think. Not so, Simon Scarrow seems to have the ability to tell several side-plots while not having to deviate from the main story. It helps keep the pace flowing fast but not to the point where I'm going '... the hell just happened?' I like that- what I also liked was how well thought out Cato and Macro are. They couldn't be further from each other in upbringing and attitudes to life - Cato a 17 year old, who has known nothing more that palace life, that being easy living and books, a lot of books. Macro, a hardnosed bastard, who cannot read or write but is very good with a gladius. Seems a good balance, and it works very well. The humour is brilliant between the two, not to mention how dumbfounded Cato comes across at times. Foils within foils, if you like.
There's plots and intrigue to find here, a few choice fights 'where the metal meets the meat' and beyond this, a intelligent plot that leads Macro and Cato above the call of duty - that's a very bad game by the way! If you want something story-driven rather than historically accurate, then I'd suggest Simon Scarrow's Eagle series as a good yarn.
I was going to talk about why some readers find swearing and curse words to be abhorrent to them. I was also going to share some 'historically' accurate Latin phrases, that highlight that not all were well mannered individuals - am I going to? Maybe a little. The problem is, we all come from different backgrounds. Swearing, I'm always told, isn't intelligent. Swearing isn't acceptable in society and shows a clear lack of intellect. Using curse words reflects badly upon one-self. Bollocks. Swearing, whether you do or don't, has no bearing upon one's intelligence. It is the makeup of a individual and those who judge upon well used paths really should lighten up - especially when taking offense from written words in a novel. Now I was going to sit on the fence and say... neither side is right or wrong. However, it is wrong to sit judgement upon someone else - imagine if myself, as a academic dismissed Livy's work because it 'read' like propaganda for Augustus reign. Or thought, no Hipponax is a sexual deviant and I don't want to read his work, neither does it have any merit within Classical antiquity. Herodotus wrote with fanciful words, embellishing his stories with tales of grandeur and inaccuracies. He spent time with Persians, so his evidence must be dismissed as both propaganda and potentially being one sided.
Most Latin insults (that we know of) are generally referring to a individuals mentula (penis), coleus/colei (testicle/s). Do you want examples? Read Martial, Hipponax, Sallust, I could suggest many more. One of Martial's lines was "If you want to piss over a boat, do so, and do so again, until you piss on some Greek's" - Even Cicero is at it in Brutus something about mentioning cunnus. They must have been ALL thick and stupid - I mean who would use rude words - heaven forbid.
By the way - I respect those who are offended by profanity, just not in a judgemental context.