I'm in the middle of writing a new novel and I'm having problems with army ranks. The army structure and the politics in this novel are very closely modeled on Rome (but pretty much nothing else). So I started out using the Roman titles largely because the politics are so Roman.
The problem is that they don't speak latin and I'm not sure that it isn't a bit confusing to the reader. Of course, I had to make some adjustments but I have the Legion commanded by a Tribune, the camp Praefectus, Centurians to command the centuries, Optio as in effect a senior NCO, etc. Should I stick with this, do you think? Or go with Generals, Lieutentants, Sergeants, etc?
Or make something up? Any suggestions?
Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :
Ooh use the Roman words!
The whole Sarge, Lieutenant, Commander, etc. deal is getting old anyway. The more "modern" terms seem less fantasyesque (word?) than the more (I would argue) romantic roman terms.
Posted by Rommel Fenrir Wolf II (Member # 4199) on :
Ok how about it they didn’t have ranks as we know them but as Roman Numerals
Ex:
I – PVT II- PV2 III-PFC IV- CPL V- SGT VI- SSG VII- SFC Etc.
That would make sence in a Roman Way
RFW2nd
Posted by rcorporon (Member # 2879) on :
I think that the writer Erikson, in his Malazan empire books, handles the naming of ranks quite well. He just makes up his own, and handles the dialog in a way that you can easily understand, and come to grips with, the way that he has the ranks structured.
If you're still worried, you can always include a quick note at the start of your story outlining how the ranks are to work.
Stay away from modern ranks, as it'll destroy any immersion that the reader will have while reading your story.
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
quote:Stay away from modern ranks, as it'll destroy any immersion that the reader will have while reading your story.
I kind of agree which is why I started out not using them, but roman ranks have been used a lot and I'm worried that might have a similar effect. I'll read the Erikson work which I haven't. I'd be interesting in seeing how they were handled.
Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :
I kind of like the idea of made-up ranks, as long as they seem consistent and have names I can take seriously. The important point is that I can discern a subordinate from a superior.
Posted by NoTimeToThink (Member # 5174) on :
Like Zero said - make sure we can discern the ranks and understand who's the big dog in the room. One thing that drives me away from a story is when I have to spend too much time thinking about terms the writer has made up.
There is nothing wrong with using the Roman ranks just because they have been used before - they have a connotation and feel attached to them that feels natural. Just remember - not all readers automatically know how the ranks are laid out in the food chain...
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
Difficulty in understanding them is an arugment against making them up. There seem to be arguments (perfectly good ones) against all the options. LOL
Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :
Welcome to writing. Posted by RobertB (Member # 6722) on :
The Penguin Classics edition of Tacitus uses modern ranks, and it really annoys me because they're so out of place. Don't forget that the centurionate was a whole career structure, not a single rank. A basic-grade centurion commanded a century (80 men if it was up to strength, possibly with another 20 support people, though nobody actually knows) with junior officers under him. Then he could potentially work his way up to Primus Pilus (First Spear), the professional officer responsible for the entire legion. When he retired, he was presented with an official horse and became an eques, or minor aristocrat. As such he was then elegible to return as an evocatus (a man recalled to the standard) with the rank of prefectus. Equestrian prefects were vital to the army as they provided a core of experienced staff officers, which the senatorial prefects were mostly doing it short term as a necessary stage in their careers. My advice would be to do some reading on the Roman army, and base your structure on theirs.
Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :
And why would you assume that I haven't done reading on the Roman army structure since I already said I was basing mine on theirs?
You're right that the Centurianate was so complex that it is hard to follow for someone who has studied it at some length. I simplified it a bit while keeping the over-all structure.
The army structure and the political sturcutre I am writing is in fact very close to the Roman one at a certain period, including the highly desireable retirement for both officers and non-officers. That may or may not mean I should use their titles. I'm not writing about the Roman Empire, after all.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 29, 2008).]
Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :
I mean for that matter you could have Centurion mean he's held his post for a hundred years, rather than someone over a hundred men. Make of them whatever you wish, and for the record - I think the Roman titles are cool.
Posted by Wordmerchant (Member # 7778) on :
Unless this army belongs to a society that uses Roman titles and/or naming conventions, it may be a bit jarring to the reader.
