The scene I've been working on for a while is now complete and has been added to the screenplay.

In this scene we are introduced to some of the main Roman legionary characters, whose travels, adventures and (sorry about this) deaths we'll be following for much of the rest of the story. The new recruit Marcus Aius and the primus pilus Marcus Caelius - both historical characters in a sense - make their first entrances.

Other members of the Third Contubernium, First Century, First Cohort of Legio XVIII are also introduced, including the squad's veteran and long suffering caput Quintus Veranius Fimus. Prominent in the scene are the squad's comedy duo, the gambler Manius Oranius Gallio and his sidekick Drusus Salonius Cico. After all the strategy and politics of the previous two scenes I thought it was time for a little light relief.

Click here for Scene Three - 'The Camp at Aliso'. As ever, your comments, feedback and suggested corrections are very welcome.

Salve,

Finally a new instalment of the script. Regarding Roman unit designations within the legion you can read a post in this thread on the Roman army talk form. The numerals used in the titles of legionary centuriae indicated automatically their cohort (all first centuries belonging to the first cohort, all second to the second etc). Within the cohort the title of the centurion was used to distinguish the subunits. For the contubernia it is not known in what manner they were kept apart. An inscription once thought to refer to a section of a certain squad leader is now reqad as referring to a cohors instead of a contubernium. Byzantine squads consisted alternately of primi and secundi but this had a function in the battle formations (increasing/decreasing formation depth, forming double battle line) rather than a function in the table of organisation.

M.P. Speidel, Roman army studies II has several relevant articles.

Regards,

Sander van Dorst

Salve,

While looking for other things I stumbled upon these references. That should teach me about trusting my old notes.

AE 1975, 638a.
7(centuria) Cris(pi?) con(tubernio) Cusioni

AE 1975, 638b.
7(centuria) Firmi contubarnio(sic) Maximi coh(ortis) II T(hracum)

AE 1976, 370.
[Pe]lveis contub(e)rnio Messoris

AE 1994, 1261.
7(centuria) T(iti) Veci co(ntubernii) Prudentis

Taking the usual caveats into account (most texts date from later than the period etc) it seems that referring to the contubernium Fimi would be appropriate.

Regards,

Sander van Dorst

Thanks for the information Sander, I'll make the appropriate changes to the script tonight.

You should find the next couple of scenes will follow much sooner, as I have the research for them already done and should have them finished fairly soon. I do want to pick up the pace of additions to the script, since 'Clades Variana' is one year old this month, so at this rate of writing the script will take about 15 years to finish! With the site and its apparatus more or less in place, I will now be able to concentrate on making additions to the script more regularly - real life and the odd patch of writer's block willing.

Thanks again for the feedback,

Tim O'Neill

Caught your announcement on the Roman-Empire.net forum the other day.

Of the scenes you have in place, I like this one the most. You definitely hit some humorous notes, though I would drop the "join the army and see the world" one.

In fact, I could almost see this scene moved ahead of some of the others you've done as far as the dramatic impact of the story goes, which brings me to a question of structure: Do you have a treatment or outline of scenes in place when you set to work on actually writing the scenes?

Anyway, keep up the good work!

Thanks for the feedback. I had a vague idea of what the grunts in the unit would be like before I wrote it, but they became a lot clearer as I wrote and revised this scene, especially Gallio and Cico.

This was partially based on my own experience of 'units' like this in re-enactment groups and in various working environments, especially work groups of men in factories that I encountered during summer jobs when I was a student. Every crew had its leader, his off-sider/number two, a joker and his sidekick, one or two ordinary guys and at least one loser who always got things wrong. Then there's the team rookie, which in my case was usually me.

After the fairly serious scenes before this one, I thought it was time for a little soldiers' banter.

The '"See the world' they said' line was put in as a deliberate reference to various old WW2 movies and to Asterix - since virtually every Asterix book had a Roman using this line. It's also meant to be referential and ironic - Cico is using it precisely because it's a cliche. That said, when I re-read the scene yesterday I wasn't sure about it either, so it may disappear in a future revision.

I do have a structure mapped out on paper, but it's already changed a few times. Rest assured that I'm aware of most of the theories of screenplay structure and have arranged things with the appropriate establishment scenes, plot point scenes, crises, climaxes and resolutions. Whether the script sticks to the plan is something which remains to be seen, but that is something which I can fix in the editing and revision stage. For now I want to get the story down - I can do the hacking and slashing of the script later.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Tim O'Neill

You did a good job and - imvho - present a fine picture of the atmosphere in the camp among the soldiers of the elite part of the legion. As far as I know from my contacts in several armies, elites tend to moan a lot about the circumstances and conditions, although they are very tough, when it comes to do their job.
The relief works fine and is nicely worked into this psychological momentum, particularly regarding Cico.
Only Caelius doesn't seem to me as impressive as he should be being the primipilus of the legion ... or is it just me?

Keep up writing and don't let the blocks stop you!



Lucilla Cornelia

Thanks for the feedback Lucilla. These guys certainly are amongst the best in Varus' army and, when the action starts, the grumbling will stop and they'll show why they are in the First Century of the Eighteenth. This is also why they are going to be amongst those who survive until the very end of the battle (since having them all die in the first attack will make for a much shorter film).

Caelius will have a lot more to do with several later scenes - at this stage I simply wanted to introduce him briefly. He will also be playing a major role in the last stages of the battle and his relationship with Lucius Sergius Facilis - the aquilifer of the Eighteenth - will also play a major part in the story.
Cheers,

Tim O'Neill

PS I've never been able to get the formatted signature to work on Network54. What are you doing right that I'm doing wrong?

You are very talented. Cann't wait to read the rest.

p.s. I think the phrase "Join the amry and see the world" should be kept as I do think it is plausible.
The army at the time was based on volunteers and an Italic farmer would join up knowing well that he was going to far and strange places. Hardy youngsters would have been attracted to army life because of this. This must have attracted even young and hardy germans into joining the army too (From the forests of Germany to Syria or Judea, maybe to Rome itself!)

p.s. There were some survivors. Are you going to make one of these a character?

Tim,

What I mean about M. Caelius being a bit ... "pale" is that apart from his outer appearance there is nothing characteristic about him. He should have a habit, something that makes him stand out and gives a clue why he has become the primipilus of the 18th, the first man of a unit of 5,000-6,000 men.

You don't have to add it immediately, since this is something that evolves while the character evolves during the process of writing (I know what I'm talking about here *sighs*). Just don't forget to review this first introduction, when he's finally moulded as a lively person.

If no links are working in your signature that's maybe due to using quot marks (") within the HTML tags. After I removed all the quot marks, my signature worked just fine.


Lucilla Cornelia

I may go back and add something to this very brief initial appearance by Caelius but, as I mentioned, he will become much more significant later and my objective with this scene was to keep the focus on the members of the contubernium Fimi. I introduce no less than nine characters in this scene, and it was the seven legionaries who were the point of this sequence. Both the Optio Grumio and the primus pilus will have plenty of time to be developed later.

Since Caelius is the only soldier apart from Varus and the officers mentioned by name in the sources about whom we have any substantial information - all from his tomb - he is a character I can develop quite a bit more. He and the rookie recruit Aius will find they come from the same part of Italy and we will also learn how Caelius won his corona civica. Caelius will also be part of the last stand that forms the climax of the film.

Thanks for the hint re my sig - someone on the 'Roman Army' Network 54 forum was asking the same thing the other day, so when I get it to work I'll pass my info on to him.
Cheers,



Tim O'Neill
'Clades Variana' Webmaster

Salve,

The century of Caelius would be the centuria prima pili prioris or centuria primi pili prioris, in English either the first company of the front spearman (the alternative interpretation of pilus is file rather than spearman, though that is the most common interpretation) or the company of the first front spearman. At this date the legion was very likely organised on a sixty centuriae pattern, for which one can point to the AD14 mutineers administering 60 lashes to match the number of centurions, and it would be necessary to specify which centuria of a primus pilus. Such company designations are known from the inscriptions of legio II Parthica from Apamea, where three texts were found referring to a centuria of a primus pilus posterior. The indications for an organisation of the first cohort in a milliary unit structure with five double strength subunits dates only from the reign of Nero and it may have been implemented in a limited number of legions rather than an overall reform.

Regards,

Sander van Dorst

First, let me assert you that I found this scene very good, and I liked it a lot. The criticism does not change that. I found this scene very lifelike, which may be one of my points of criticism. I mean, I guess that in order to keep the whole thing recognisable to a modern audience, there must be something left out from this 1st C. discussion.

For instance, I experienced this scene as extremely resembling a discussion in Vietnam or on a WW2 front somewhere. I done a lot of reading in novels about modern warfare (which is Not to my credit :-)), but the banter on those occasions was very similar.

One thing I'd expect to be different is religion: modern western soldiers are not generally very religious, so God/gods would not enter their speech that much apart from cursing. This I would expect to be very different in an early Roman discussion, where supersttion and religion would be very present.

Another is difference between conscripts and volunteers. This discussion felt more like a group of conscripts than a group of volunteers. I will tell you why: there is a lot of dull fatalism in their speech ("we don't like it but we have to"). Now I could be mistaken - I guess that signing up for the Roman Army left you as few choices a being a modern conscript. But ancient soldiers would be very much after profit as well - -the chance of loot would be much more interesting for them as they would be for a modern soldier. I missed that here.

A last point - the Roman Army was not cosey, but savage and hard. I'd expect a lot of violence, from oficers down to grunts and hence also among common soldiers. Fits-fights, cock-fighting. This scene was very tame in that aspect.

But if I'm wrong, please tell me!

Cheers,

Robert
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/

(PS It'll be September before I can answer all reactions)

Robert wrote:


First, let me assert you that I found this scene very good, and I liked it a lot. The criticism does not change that. I found this scene very lifelike, which may be one of my points of criticism. I mean, I guess that in order to keep the whole thing recognisable to a modern audience, there must be something left out from this 1st C. discussion.

For instance, I experienced this scene as extremely resembling a discussion in Vietnam or on a WW2 front somewhere. I done a lot of reading in novels about modern warfare (which is Not to my credit :-)), but the banter on those occasions was very similar.


No problem with your comment Robert, as it's something I thought someone might bring up eventually. One difficulty I have with many historical films is what I call 'soaring violins dialogue' - the kind of formal, square-jawed, eyes on the horizon, pseudo-Shakesperian speechmaking which is supposed to indicate that (i) this all happened a long time ago and (ii) it's all very serious and important because it's HISTORY. People in the past didn't make speeches when they spoke to each other, they spoke in a normal, everyday, colloquial manner (unless it was a formal occasion, or they actually were making a speech!)

Unfortunately, since we can't send a microphone back through time to record them, we have no idea what Roman soldiers' banter sounded like, so I've drawn on my own experiences of how men camped together or working together interact and mixed it with the kind of modern soldiers' banter that a modern audience would recognise. My intention is for the tone to be colloquial and reasonably recognisable.


One thing I'd expect to be different is religion: modern western soldiers are not generally very religious, so God/gods would not enter their speech that much apart from cursing. This I would expect to be very different in an early Roman discussion, where supersttion and religion would be very present.


Religion will be entering into quite a bit of the dialogue in the soldiers' scenes, just not in this one. While, in many ways, people are people regardless of when they live, another of my pet hates in historical films is depicting historical people as being just like us except in fancy dress. I will be doing quite a bit to indicate that these people saw the world very differently to us and thought differently too, as we've discussed in the 'Ancient and Modern Moralities' thread, and their religion will be a mjor part of this.


Another is difference between conscripts and volunteers. This discussion felt more like a group of conscripts than a group of volunteers. I will tell you why: there is a lot of dull fatalism in their speech ("we don't like it but we have to"). Now I could be mistaken - I guess that signing up for the Roman Army left you as few choices a being a modern conscript. But ancient soldiers would be very much after profit as well - -the chance of loot would be much more interesting for them as they would be for a modern soldier. I missed that here.


In my experience, soldiers will grumble given half a chance regardless of whether they are volunteers or not. Most of the grumbling in this scene is good-natured and only semi-serious and has more to do with having to get out of bed on a cold winter's morning in northern Germany than anything. I've heard plenty of similar grumbling on similar mornings from re-enactors who have not simply volunteered, but are paying for the privilage of pursuing their hobby. Loot etc will be motivators in later scenes, but I can't see much scope for it being a factor in a scene which consists of getting out of bed and cooking breakfast! One thing at a time ...


A last point - the Roman Army was not cosey, but savage and hard. I'd expect a lot of violence, from oficers down to grunts and hence also among common soldiers. Fits-fights, cock-fighting. This scene was very tame in that aspect.


Again, the Roman army may not have been cosy, but I'm sure Cico and Gallio didn't stumble out of bed every morning into a fist fight while cockfights and beatings took place in the background! Your point is taken, and I don't think you'll have a problem with the later scenes where this sort of concept will be introduced, but there's only so much you can put in one scene without it becoming too crowded with details and concepts - especially one that consists mainly of eating breakfast.

Thanks for the feedback though.
Cheers,




Tim O'Neill
'Clades Variana' Webmaster.

Tim,

One fairly insignificant point. I've only read this scene, but I noticed several times where the character's lines are very much in the British-like vernacular ("chap", "bloke", "bog", "right you are", etc.). I'm not up on 1st century Latin slang, but I would be surprised if the common soldier spoke like an Englishman, Australian or American. Am I wrong?

Keep up the good work and much good luck,
Chuck

I'm sorry to say it, but the first century Roman soldier probably didn't speak English AT ALL!! Shocking. I mean, we can only go with realism that far, no? And Romans did not speak the stiff/upper class Shakespearian vernicular we are used to from Hollywood flicks and other sources. Why not let them speak slang? You will always run into this problem with historical or geographically relevant movies. I mean, German soldiers didn't speak broken German English (sis is just my opinion) or British English in WWII, either, but that's what they usually do (because they're the bad guys) in Hollywood war flicks.

Neidel wrote:

I'm sorry to say it, but the first century Roman soldier probably didn't speak English AT ALL!! Shocking. I mean, we can only go with realism that far, no?


Well, at least one forum contributor has suggested that all the dialogue be in Latin and re-constructed North West Germanic with subtitles, but there are some major practical problems with that. As I've discussed above, I want the casual conversation in the script to sound like casual conversation - just because it's a historical film doesn't mean everyone has to make heroic speeches, even when they're talking about breakfast.

The choice of a certain British slang idiom is deliberate. In this way I can differentiate between the common soldiers and officers who've risen from the ranks, who'll use working class or rural British accents and idioms, and the aristocratic officers, who'll use more upper class forms of speech. This isn't to say Roman soldiers spoke this way, but since we don't have any clear idea of how they spoke and since it would probably be fairly foreign to modern audiences if we did (even if it was translated from the Latin) I need to find other ways to subtly indicate these class and status differences.
Cheers,





Tim O'Neill
'Clades Variana' Webmaster.

First, why have the Romans made a camp right next to a fortress, when they would obviously be better off inside?
Then to the most serious error in the scene, there's nothing very ancient about it. You could easily place the soldiers in Vietnam war by just changing names.
Roman soldiers could talk about gods, omens, ancestors, unpopular centurions with their beating sticks, wages, food. Someone could mention some reward received from exploits like scaling walls first or protecting legion's standard. And of course legionaries could be killed by diseases, bandits, even beaten to death by their comrades as a punishment, fighting rebellions was not the only danger.
Romans often had a difficult time dealing with subjugated peoples, as their brutal actions caused dissent. An area was really pacified when it was sufficiently Romanized or any rebellious population was eliminated/enslaved. Roman soldiers were generally eager to carry out the latter option, because it provided opportunities to loot, rape and pillage - and all that was perfectly acceptable! Using modern language implies modern values also. Romans had feelings about Celts and Germans, mainly they despised, feared and hated them. Really I'd expect someone to say something like: "Finally a chance to kill those damn barbarians".
Unless there was an emergency, recruits to the Roman army were expected to fill quite strict criteria. They were tall and strong Roman citizens, and even their values were questioned by army officials. At this stage recruits with poor physique are unlikely.
How many men actually are in the tent? Is Fimus (with Liberalis) coming from night watch? Was there a wake-up signal? Where is the servant? There is one (and a mule) per each tent?

TS wrote:

First, why have the Romans made a camp right next to a fortress, when they would obviously be better off inside?


Because Varus' three legions are coming together to greet the new governor and the fortress of Aliso is
already fully occupied. We know in this situation
that extra troops camped outside the walls.


Then to the most serious error in the scene, there's nothing very ancient about it. You could easily place the soldiers in Vietnam war by just changing names.


I don't entirely agree, but to a certain extent the
'familiarity' of the scene is deliberate, as I've
discussed above. This is meant to be a fairly recognisible scene of grunts interacting together.


Roman soldiers could talk about gods, omens, ancestors, unpopular centurions with their beating sticks, wages, food. Someone could mention some reward received from exploits like scaling walls first or protecting legion's standard. And of course legionaries could be killed by diseases, bandits, even beaten to death by their comrades as a punishment, fighting rebellions was not the only danger.


There are lots of 'period' things I could have the soldiers in this scene talk about, but the main point of the dialogue in this or any scene is to introduce characters and ideas and advance the story. I could have introduced more 'ancient' concepts, but there is a danger that this can come across as putting them in as set dressing - just to hammer the point home this is set in the First Century and that things were different then. As it is I show some of the relations between the grunts and their officers, have a discussion about an aristocratic new governor (indicating class differences and the links between the military and the Roman civil administration) and mention a former comrade being captured and tortured to death by the Langobardi. There are many other such things I could have put in this scene, but at this stage I felt that was enough - one thing at a time, there are many scenes and a lot of dialogue to come.


Romans often had a difficult time dealing with subjugated peoples, as their brutal actions caused dissent. An area was really pacified when it was sufficiently Romanized or any rebellious population was
eliminated/enslaved. Roman soldiers were generally eager to carry out the latter option, because it provided opportunities to loot, rape and pillage - and all that was perfectly acceptable!


I take all this as being perfectly valid and you can expect to see many of these things depicted or reflected in future dialogue. I do think though that cramming everything you mention above in a brief conversation over breakfast would be clumsy in the extreme. As I keep saying - one thing at a time.


Using modern language implies modern values also. Romans had feelings about Celts and Germans, mainly they despised, feared and hated them. Really I'd expect someone to say something like: "Finally a chance to kill those damn barbarians".


Their non-modern values are something I will be depicting, though not in this particular scene. A certain degree of their attitude to the Germanics is implied in some of what they say, but given the circumstances for these soldiers and the situation in Germania generally, something like "Finally a chance to kill those damn barbarians" is actually one of the last things I'd be expecting anyone to be saying in this scene or at this point. They aren't marching to kill anyone.


Unless there was an emergency, recruits to the Roman army were expected to fill quite strict criteria. They were tall and strong Roman citizens, and even their values were questioned by army officials. At this stage recruits with poor physique are unlikely.


There are no recruits with poor physique in this scene - Cico was simply joking about the 'fat kid', he would have been far from fat.


How many men actually are in the tent?


Seven. They were short a man, which is why they got Marcus Aius as a replacement for the comrade they lost out on the Elbe.


Is Fimus (with Liberalis) coming from night watch?


No, he's just an early riser.


Was there a wake-up signal?


As I understand it the Roman army didn't have a wake up signal, though if there's evidence they did I'll put one in.


Where is the servant? There is one (and a mule) per each tent?


My understanding is that it was usually only officers and centurions who had servants. The mule is there, he just doesn't have any lines in this scene. g

Thanks for your feedback though - there will be plenty of scenes where I slowly indicate the 'ancientness' of these people. I'm not very keen on overloading each scene with period details just for the sake of colour - it's one of my pet hates in historical writing and is usually a sign of a clumsy writer.
Cheers,





Tim O'Neill
'Clades Variana' Webmaster.

This might actually be the most useful source for Roman camps and marching order: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6622/
It is sometimes hard to reach, so save it.

"GALLIO
Come on mate, another lovely day in Germania.
Let's get some of that bracing northern winter air".

I also find it hard to swallow that Gallio would use the word 'mate' sounds better as '(my)friend'

Just a thought.

Adrian,

I've actually addressed this point earlier in this thread and in the FAQ:


The choice of a certain British slang idiom is deliberate. In this way I can differentiate between the common soldiers and officers who've risen from the ranks, who'll use working class or rural British accents and idioms, and the aristocratic officers, who'll use more upper class forms of speech. This isn't to say Roman soldiers spoke this way, but since we don't have any clear idea of how they spoke and since it would probably be fairly foreign to modern audiences if we did (even if it was translated from the Latin) I need to find other ways to subtly indicate these class and status differences.


As we've discussed above, exactly what forms of everyday speech sounds "right" varies widely from person to person. Some people here have commented they they'd prefer to see all the dialogue in Latin and North-West Germanic with subtitles. Since that isn't very practical and since we don't know enough about how Roman soldiers' idiom or how that should be represented in modern English, I've chosen a form of idiom that allows me to indicate class and social differences amongst the Romans. This British idiom allows me to do this.
Thanks for the comment though,


Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster

Salve,

In surviving texts soldiers address each other as commilito (fellow soldier, comrade), frater (brother) or contubernalis (tent mate).

Regarding the wake up call, musical signals were given at the start of the watches (Polybius) and according to Vegetius different ones indicated their start and end.

Epitoma 3.8

... Et quia inpossibile videbatur in speculis vigilantes singulos permanere, ideo in quattuor partes ad clepsydram sunt divisae vigiliae, ut non amplius quam tribus horis nocturnis necesse sit vigilare. A tubicine omnes vigiliae committuntur et finitis horis a cornicine revocantur. ...

'... And because it seemed impossible that single men put on watch duty could stay throughout on the lookout, therefore the watches are divided into four parts by the waterclock, in order that it is not necessary to keep guard for more than three hours. All watches are started by the tubicen and are recalled after the finishing of the hours by the cornicen. ...'


Regards,

Sander van Dorst

Sander wrote:


In surviving texts soldiers address each other as commilito (fellow soldier, comrade), frater (brother) or contubernalis (tent mate).


Thanks Sander. Using the Latin terms might not be very useful and some of the translations are bit clumsy though. "Comrade" sounds a bit like a Russian Communist Party member addressing another member to modern ears and "tent mate" sounds a bit odd to modern ears.

"Brother" is something worth using in dialogue though. I intend to stick with the English colloquial idiom for the reasons outlined above, though I will draw the line at having the soldiers using Cockney rhyming slang. ;>
Cheers,




Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster

Salve,

The comrade would do fine considering that [i]vexilla[/i] are regularly (though not exclusively) attested as being red in colour and [i]proletarii[/i] would have been accepted in the ranks by this date .

Regards,

Sander van Dorst

I wonder what audiences would find more anachronistic - cockney Romans or commie Romans? ;>

Cheers,

Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster

Salve,

I doubt most of them would even notice it as anachronistic.

Regards,

Sander van Dorst

Why are you asking internet users to help you with ideas for your film-script? Do you not have any imagination?
If not why are you attempting to write a screenplay? What happens if you mamage to sell it?-Will you send money to all those kind people who sent you ideas to help them reap the rewards of the craft-ideas that you seem not to possess...