EUREKA - Roman army troops

[D B Campbell]

Are there agents in this realm of publishing? I assume there are. Duncan?

Academic publishers still expect to be approached direct. They like to call the shots. And the deals they offer tend not to be rich enough to attract agents. (In my experience, anyway.)

Of course, another avenue to try is the select band of thesis publishers: Archaeopress, for example.

[philsidnell]

It's tricky enough getting a serious conversation going with some authors in this field without agents getting in the way, wouldn't you say Duncan? :wink:

Phil Sidnell

[D B Campbell]

It's tricky enough getting a serious conversation going with some authors ...

I was perfectly serious when I suggested The Roman Invasion of China for your Conquests series, Phil. :wink:

[philsidnell]

Actually at the moment I'm looking for someone to write on ancient sieges, don't know anyone suitable do you?

[antiochus]

Phil Sidnell wrote:
Did you get a definite offer from Military Press? Looking back over this thread you'll see I did actually offer to take a look at it back on 13th September 2007, but I think at that stage you were still hopeful of an academic press taking it. If for some reason you have still had no luck, the offer still stands. And it isn't the case, despite Jasper's mischievous comment, that you would be asked to 'spice it' up with anecdotes.

Hello Phil,
Somewhere on RAT I remember stating about the requirements of my book do not meet your publishing format. Pen and Sword publish in the A5 format, whereas, because of the number of unit diagrams, the book needs to be A4 format. Plus I want it published using 80 gsm gloss paper. Plus the book doesn’t need anecdotes to spice it up. She’s already hot and spicy.

On a different note, very good artwork for the cover of Pyrrhus of Epirus, by Jeff Champion. One of the staff at Melbourne University helped Jeff with his research. This same person helps me and he has been privy to all my research. Being an extremely honest and decent person, he did not pass anything on about the Roman army in the period of Pyrrhus in my book to Jeff.

Regards

Steven

[philsidnell]

So you have an offer from a publisher to do it in A4 on 80gsm do you? Fair enough, I look forward to reading it soon.

If not and you do decide that getting your first book published and out there is more important than specifying the exact format, then you know where I am. We don't only publish in 234 x 156mm, though we do use that predominantly, because it is cost-effective, reader-friendly and flexible. If I decided your work was worth publishing, I'm sure we could accommodate the tactical diagrams.


As I said previously, Jasper was being a little mischievous with his comment about anecdotes. There's nothing wrong with good anecdote in a narrative work, but obviously it doesn't suit technical reference. Our ancient list includes serious historical works by some well-established and well-respected academics that you might have heard of (and perhaps even respect a little?): P J Rhodes on Alcibiades, Mike Bishop on Roman Legionary Forts, Jon Coulston on the Roman conquest of Britain, David Breeze on Roman frontiers... None of these have too much problem with the format.

Anyway, I'll leave it in your court.

Best wishes
Phil

[Praefectusclassis]

Jasper was being a little mischievous with his comment about anecdotes

Dear me, I just meant to illustrate (and probably overstated) the difference between Brill-type heavy academic stuff and the books Pen and Sword puts out. That's all, I promise. No offense meant Phil!

[philsidnell]

None taken Jasper , just making sure nobody gets the idea we don't do 'serious' ancient history or that we have a rigid formula. Would hate to think of exciting new theories or analysis from promising would-be authors going unread due to some misconception about certain kinds of publisher. That would just be a waste.

All the best

Phil Sidnell

[mcbishop]

Plus I want it published using 80 gsm gloss paper. Plus the book doesn’t need anecdotes to spice it up. She’s already hot and spicy.

80gsm is photocopier-weight paper - you'll have horrendous problems with show-through (not sure I've ever seen 80gsm glossy but I suppose it must exist). Besides, glossy paper shows grease marks if you are eating a buttie whilst reading. Think laterally and fit the book to the format and not vice versa - it has never failed for me. Also worth asking what sort of market reach this publisher has in comparison to P&S - if it's something like BAR then you run the risk of condemning yourself to an academic hinterland (been there, done it, got the teeshirt).

Mike Bishop

[D B Campbell]

... if you are eating a buttie whilst reading.

And let's face it, that's the beauty of books -- browsing with a Paris bun in one hand and The Roman Conquest of Italy in the other. Can't do that with a BAR. (I speak from experience. You just can't.)

[philsidnell]

You can't read Roman Conquest of Italy with a bun in the other hand, you need that ready for turning to the next fascinating page - it must be all that anecdotal stuff he puts in.

Phil

[antiochus]

Phil wrote:
Our ancient list includes serious historical works by some well-established and well-respected academics that you might have heard of (and perhaps even respect a little?): P J Rhodes on Alcibiades, Mike Bishop on Roman Legionary Forts, Jon Coulston on the Roman conquest of Britain, David Breeze on Roman frontiers...

Mike Bishop, Jon Coulston, David Breeze....“well-respected” you’re kidding me. D D They are gods among academics.

Phil wrote:
If not and you do decide that getting your first book published and out there is more important than specifying the exact format, then you know where I am. If I decided your work was worth publishing, I'm sure we could accommodate the tactical diagrams.

Thanks Phil, will keep that in mind. There is also a private syndicate who have given me an open cheque when I am ready to publish so I have a few options including offers from other publishers to think about. One of my many demands is as 2010 release as it is the 500th year anniversary of the first book to be published on the Roman army; so it must be published next year. Now one publishing house has offered position 137 in their production line but I cannot get a time frame from them about an exact publishing date.

However, at the moment I am preoccupied with my latest eureka moment, which is the reason for the lateness of my reply. To achieve a legion containing centuries of eighty men, the Romans increased the tribe. I have the emperor who did this which brings Arrian and Hyginus in line. Now this is where the book stops, but some days ago out of curiosity, thinking the tribal system would have become redundant, I enlarged a tribe with the same increment as had been used twice before in its history (one the maniple legion and the other for Hyginus and Arrian) and I now have in front of me Vegetius’ legion. No fudging or anything on my part. This has revealed Vegetius has made the same mathematical mistake as Isidore in regard to this legion. Also Vegetius’ description of the first cohort has been arrived at by Vegetius doing his own arithmetic. Milner’s translation of Vegetius describes the 400 principes of the first cohort in the past tense, which reduces the first cohort to 600 men. Putting Milner aside, there is no double strength first cohort. Not one legion from Servius Tullius to Vegetius fits the bill. The supposed evidence for the double cohort is Vegetius, then III 66178 for legio V Macedonica and III 14507, which has 47 men discharged from the first cohort, 22 from the second cohort and eighteen from the third cohort. More men discharged from the first cohort indicate there are more veterans in the first cohort than the other cohorts. It cannot be used as evidence of a double size cohort. The last piece of supposed evidence is the camp at Inchtuthil, which has created more questions than it has answered.

Vegetius has gotten himself confused with a procedure the Romans do with the legion which originated with the Servian legion in around 530 BC. This can be found in Josephus who twice describes the legions marching order as six abreast but deployed seven deep, which is their system of changing from even to odd numbers. This procedure has not changed and is found in every legion throughout the primary sources. All Vegetius has done is trip up over this issue and calculated it in the wrong manner. But he does state (II 4) “if this description seems rather obscure or incomplete, it is proper to blame not myself but the difficulty of the actual subject.” Now when you change from a 10 month calendar to a 12 month calendar but keep both systems, there is going to be problems with the odd numbers. But the Romans found a way around this and the Tabulae Hebana gives one such method for the voting of the tribes when 33 tribes have to place one vote with only 15 vases. Now with the Vegetian legion I am in a period that is not my area of interest or expertise. But I can see Vegetius’ legion has the very foundations of the Byzantine organisation described in the Strategicon.


Regards

Steven

[philsidnell]

Hi Steven

While tying in with the 500th anniversary of the first book published on the Roman army, I respectfully suggest that you might be shooting yourself in the foot if you let this dictate your decisions regarding publishers for two reasons:

1) It's not an anniversary that will get any mention except perhaps in the most specialist publications such as Ancient Warfare(where you already have a captive audience) so any effect on sales will be negligible. Certainly it won't mean anything to the stock buyer for Waterstone's, Borders etc.

2)You've probably already left it too late for a 2010 publication if a decent editing, typesetting, proofing, marketing, distribution job is to be done on it. By the time the publisher of your choice has seen and considered it, negotiated and signed contracts and you've got the finished typescript to them, you are going to be into 2010 already. I can only speak for Pen & Sword but we usually allow at least 9 months from delivery by the author to finished copies reaching the warehouse. If you delivered a near-perfect typescript right now, it could be shoe-horned into the programme for that period if the publisher saw a pressing need but see 1) above. We would do that for something that was time-sensitive or topical in terms of tying in with media coverage (as for the 70th anniversary of Dunkirk, Battle of Britain etc next year). Of course you may find another publisher who will promise to turn it round quicker for you. Personally, I would be flexible on the publication date and get it done right. You've spent years working on this, do you want it to be rushed at the end for the sake of an arbitrary date?

Good luck!


Phil Sidnell

[D B Campbell]

Putting Milner aside, there is no double strength first cohort. ... The supposed evidence for the double cohort is Vegetius, ...

Incorrect. Hyginus, De munit. castr. 3: Cohors prima ..., et quoniam duplum numerum habet, duplam pedaturam accipiet, ... ("The first cohort, because it has double strength, will receive a double area" sc. in the camp).

Back to the drawing board?

[antiochus]

Incorrect. Hyginus, De munit. castr. 3: Cohors prima ..., et quoniam duplum numerum habet, duplam pedaturam accipiet, ... ("The first cohort, because it has double strength, will receive a double area" sc. in the camp).

Back to the drawing board?

Hyginus is refering to other legion organisation. This is the one that causes immense grief if you have no idea of its existance. Sorry Mr Campbell, but there is no need to for me to go back to the drawing board. I do not make hasty conclusions before I post.