Anglicisms in Historical Fiction

If you've ever read historical fiction, then you've probably run into Anglicisms. An Anglicism is a conversion of a term or name into it's English equivalent. For example, calling Marcus Antonius Marc Antony, or referring to pila as javelins. Novelists tend to do this commonly, and with good reason. A book of historical fiction based on ancient Rome could quickly become bogged down in ancient names and words that are confusing and almost nonsensical to the layman. To the untrained mind, these cumbersome terms would only serve to turn a rousing epic into a word jumble. On the other hand, the use of select historical names and terms does do wonders to add legitimacy to the published work.

I'll use and example. I'm currently about half-way through a historical fiction novel called Gods and Legions by Michael Curtis Ford. (It's great, by the way.) Generally, its terminology is fairly accurate, except for one issue, place names. While it's convenient to hear cities called Paris and Strasbourg, as I can easily place them geographically, it is particularly jarring. It comes very close to taking me out of Ford's carefully crafted world, and breaking the illusion.

So what do you guys think about Anglicisms? Are they a necessary evil, a needless obstruction, or something else entirely?

i know exactly what you mean... but what tends to be more jarring is when you see a strange mix of names...

i.e peoples names might be in the proper latin, but place names are sometimes in latin, sometimes in local native languages and sometimes in plain english...

i'd rather have all or nothing
RTW for example, uses latin place names for roman cities in britain, when they ought to use british names, since the place is british... and yet... once we head East, some of the place names strart to become anglicised...


btw... i tried editing the poll, but either its not possible, or ULs simply cannot, i've PMed a praetor to take a look for you

Poll edited

Poll edited again thanks tBP!

In my opinon History books (such as Christopher Duffy's) ought to stick to the language. If I'm reading a history book I prefer to read about hackenfeuer and the terms used. But on the other hand a Historical Fiction is just that - a character and plot driven fable. If the author isn't skilled enough to keep it readable then the correct terms shouldn't be used, but on the other hand skilled authors can get away with it.

I think authors can have a difficult job when trying to balance this aspect of their writing. They have to paint a word picture that is going to work for the majority of their readers. Too much authentic terminology is going is going to distract from the story; too little risks spoiling the period flavour of the piece. The average level of reader knowledge has to be judged carefully.

I remember reading two different translations of War and Peace (not that I realised that they were different at first!), and thinking that I wasn't enjoying it the second time around as much as the first. Then I hit on it by accident. In the first translation, the Grand Duke Constantine (Alexander 1's brother) was described at Austerlitz, as being "clad resplendantly in casque and cuirass". While the second merely mentioned that he was wearing his helmet and breastplate. I know which version evoked the feel of the period for me but understand that not everyone is a military buff and might not know what the first version was refferring to. A fine line!

I voted different opinion. The phenomenon is far greater. Eurocentricism is the powerfull imperial father of Anglicism, with Latin-centricim the Roman and Dark Age contemporary equivalents. English is a formation of many languages, and study needed a language to be raised upon.

Centuries of study (which no matter how it struggles is always partial), have corrupted our vision of history far away from truths. I can elaborate on this when I have more time and I would love to (I think its a great thread).

What has happened to the histories of Africa or Asia? They have been told and retold in English, by often self justifying, self-interested, even if well meaning Europeans.

I will come back to this topic when I have more time.

It's a hard one to compromise on really- since after all its being written in english, and its not like we'd want it all in Latin, but I do like the latin terminology and lexis for nouns being in Latin. It's a pain when things like senate positions are in English, since it does often confuse things, and its not obvious what is being reffered to sometimes.

Gods and Legions was fantastic by the way. A great book about a great character

I absolutely hate anglicisms. Robert Graves uses many anglicisms in his I, Claudius, much more than other authors. For example, most authors use 'Mark Anthony', so does Graves. But where most authors use 'Gaul' and 'legion', Grave uses 'France' and 'regiment'. It just doesn't sound authentic.

Since I read a lot about ancient history, I understand most of the basics of major cultural nomenclatures. I know a lot about ancient world geography compared to the normal person. Therefor I will understand more than the average person. There are many people who won't, and will not get the full understanding and feel of a historical novel when the accurate words are used.
I believe it is fine to use anglicisms, but only minor ones. Its okay to call the man simply Julius Caesar, but Gaul cannot be called France. It can be hard to remember hundreds of long names, but regions and cities can be found on a map. I prefer the accurate names though, and besides; you may only completely enjoy a historical novel if you have at least some detailed knowledge of that era. A battle with rhomphaia and pila doesn't have the full effect until you know how devastating the weapons can be to a person.

I like is as that is how you are taught history in general in the US.

Of course they dont say "barbarians of france" they use the term Gaul as france didn't exist yet. Like saying Greeks instead of hellenes is what i'm talking about. Or Persia instead of Iran, and likewise Japan instead of Nippon. Even in modern times, Cairo instead of the insanely long arabic name for it.

I like them used properly, though sometimes it annoys me when a proper english word exists and they use an old victorian era word. Like Byzantine Empire instead of Greek Empire or the other equivellents.