King of Sweden, Charles XI, during the battle of Lund in 1676. Painting by Johan Philip Lemke

The Battle of Lund was fought over an entire day and when darkness fell the victor was determined.

In order to have any chance against the much larger Danish army, Field Marshal Simon Grundel-Helmfelt had to forge a daring plan which had the precious element of surprise on his side. He already received intelligence that the Danish army believes his forces are comfortably entered a winter camp. The element of surprise became obvious, he had to attack when the Danes were still asleep and even more he had now the chance.

A December’s morning cold winds accompanied the Swedish forces in their attempt to cross the river Kaevlinge that separated the two camps and meat the Danes. By 6 AM the entire Swedish army has successfully been moved to the south bank of the river. Now he had to meditate on another problem. Even if the Danish army was sleeping comfortably in their campaign tents, an infantry attack would end in disaster, sentries would surely spot the oncoming threat and alarm the army. Haste was needed and the only ones capable of a quick attack were his cavalry.

Field Marshal Simon Grundel-Helmfelt ordered the cavalry to attack the Danish camp from the south-east. He had to cancel the order because scouts reported an unsuitable terrain for mounted units. Charles XI of Sweden had now to rethink the new situation and elaborate with his generals a new plan.

To gain a tactical advantage he ordered his men to take control of the hills near the north wall of Lund. This maneuver has not passed with stealth and the Danish army got aware of what was happening. A real king of the hill fight started between the Danish left wing and the Swedes’ right, in the end Swedish success became reality and the Danes were pushed to the east.

Christian V of Demark managed to organize his army in battle formations by the time the Sun was clearly visible in the morning sky. Now the decisive battle would begin with his Danish forces and their 56 guns ready. The battlefield presented a line over a mile long with the Swedes to the west and the Danes to the east. King Charles XI of Sweden has had far less artillery available, only a total of ten guns, thus conferring him the uncomfortable position of numerical inferiority in every aspect.

Charles XI entered the opening of the battle with a successful flanking maneuver to crush the Danish left flank. His action brought the Danish commander Carl von Arensdorff in the care of military physicians after being badly wounded. Heavy damage was inflicted in the Danish line and Field Marshal Helmfelt took the cavalry and accompanied by the Swedish king pursued the fleeing Danish infantry.

Gaining control of the right flank was an advantage soon dismissed by the events on the left wing where the Danes fought vigorously and pushed the Swedes back. Even now they had still less troops to confront the enemy, soldiers began wondering where their leader is, their eyes searched their king who was not in sight. But by sunset when the Swedish live was close to admit defeat, King Charles XI returned with his cavalry rejuvenating his tired soldiers. After a hard struggle and Charles XI managed to break through the Danish line and join is fellow countrymen. Swedish troops found new energy to carry on the fight and not even an hour passed from their king’s return and the Danish army broke.

The Danes commenced to a desperate retreat with the Swedish cavalry in the back annihilating any troops who dared to stand in their way. Many Danes have been killed in the retreat until Field Marshal Simon Grundel-Helmfelt ordered that any surrendering troops will be given courtesy.

The night had fallen and the victorious was incontestably Charles XI of Sweden, but the Scanian War was far from over.

In my opinion, films based on historical facts should rely entirely on historical facts. If you ask me, the director doesn’t have the freedom to play with historical events and turn them in fiction because his movie will reach more people than books and, unfortunately, many spectators will take the movie for fact.

Now, one can ask: “Wait a minute, what’s the difference between a history movie and a historical fiction book?” My answer is quite simple: almost all historical novels have a chapter at the end of the book explaining the real events that the story follows, movies don’t.

The first movie that appears in the list as you scroll down is Apocalypto. Yahoo!’s critic says “This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migraines. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from their infected livestock.” I’m sure most scholars said: “what the hell is this?”

The second one on the list is the most famous movie of Mel Gibson, Braveheart. Again, here’s what the critic said: “Let’s forget the fact that kilts weren’t worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace’s day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace’s blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II’s wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.” I really want to view this movie with a Scottish historian.

Finally we arrive to The Patriot. First, Mel Gibson had almost completely redefined the historical character he played. You’ve seen a perfect dad there, constantly worried about the well-being of his beloved children, but the historical fact is quite different. “Revolutionary War figure Francis “The Swamp Fox” Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson’s character, but he wasn’t the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn’t get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees”.

Now this movie is hilarious if you see it through a historian’s eyes. “Plus, the thrilling Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one.”

Take your time and read Yahoo! Movie Presents: The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies.

Maybe I’ll write about the inaccuracy of the movie Gladiator later.

Should historical fiction really be 100% accurate? No. It shouldn’t - and that’s the beauty of fiction.

Many readers confuse historical fiction with plain history for some undetermined reasons while others because of cheap snobism. The clean fact is that historical fiction does not have to be accurate, that’s why it is named fiction.

However, every author who forays into this genre has to do serious research in order to able to describe the historical environment from its architecture to civilization and sometimes to expose the complexity of the human thinking and philosophical currents that occur in their chosen time period. In other words, if you want to write a story about the fall of the Roman Republic, then you have to read Cicero, Suetonius and other Roman writers who emphasize the character of Julius Caesar or Octavian (later Augustus, the first emperor). Additionally, if your story is based in Rome at that time, then you have to consult as many scientific books on Early Imperial Rome as you can find. Why? Because you need to be able to contour in words the majesty and misery of the city.

Nobody knows what Cicero was talking about when eating or what he did outside the Senate house. Most of what we know is based on his comments (Against Catiline, Cicero’s Orations etc.). And here the historical fiction comes and fills this gap. The writer will make this well-known ancient history personality live again by conferring him emotions, inner struggles, grief, joy and everything that is human. This is never entirely accurate, the author can only imagine how Cicero felt in one situation or how nervous was he when he spoke in front of the Senate for the first time.

Nevertheless, authors keep the general events pretty accurate. What they like to do is play with the characters. If a writer has Cicero as his main character, then he must eventually say that Cicero was murdered - the circumstances are completely optional as long as the historical fact that Cicero was assassinated remains intact.

In my opinion, a story can be considered historical fiction when it implicates real historical events and characters. However, one can introduce a number of fictional characters as well, but the events must remain intact as I said before.

As a trained archaeologists and historian specializing in Roman military history (castrametation, studying the Roman forts, military tactics etc) I don’t really mind reading about real characters like Julius Caesar falling ill at the battle of Alesia and that Brutus took his armor and inspired the legions to fight on (as Conn Iggulden writes in the third book of his Emperor series) which is completely inaccurate from a historical point of view. However, the author emphasizes the hard battle that the Romans fought against the Gauls.

The historical fiction writer does not have to present the historical events as they were, this is a historian’s job. Yet, the author can offer his readers information about the events on which the story is based as well as on the characters implicated. By doing this he enkindles the reader’s curiosity who might want to do his own research on the subject.

The author’s accomplishment consists basically of getting the story told in a new way, in his/her own original way. Historical fiction is entertainment and should not be confused with plain history. Most authors offer a ‘Historical Note’ at the end or in the first pages of the book.

As I mentioned above, I spent some time asking how to write a story. Actually, I’ve spent hours reading writing blogs and websites trying to get a concrete answer. The problem is that there isn’t one. In fact there are many answers to this question and all start with “it depends”.

It depends what you want to write. A news article, a review, short stories, novels, screenplays? There is a different answer for each one. However, you can master them all by following one simply and highly popular writing tip - keep your story flow like a river’s stream.

This is basically all you need to know about writing, if you ask me. Everything else will come to you naturally.

The next step imperious for your writing career is to write. Yes, it is as simply as that. When you’re at your computer googling writing tips, how about opening you Microsoft Word (or any other software you like to use) and write. What about? Anything, just write.

If you start writing for a magazine, newspaper or online publication, don’t demoralize yourself when the editor criticizes your work. In fact, this is the best thing that will help you become better. The editor knows exactly what you did wrong and if he/she re-writes your story, take a look at it, compare your article with the other and analyze your mistakes.

Being a journalist is not very easy. Sometimes you have to emulate a specific style that your new magazine follows. This is quite hard even for an experienced journalist as he has his own style, but for beginners this can be hell. I faced this problem on different occasions, as all freelance writers do eventually.

The secret is to understand that style. To do so read their materials, write something and compare it to one of their articles. This might take some time but eventually you’ll get it.

Another quite frustrating side of good writing is re-writing. If time allows, sit back and do something else for a few hours, clear your mind and then come back and read your article. You’ll probably re-write your story completely, and that’s a good thing. (This article was not re-written, I’ll do a “Before and After” piece in the near future)

Additionally, there are various journalism courses online and I strongly suggest you take a look at News University’s website. By following their courses you can become a good journalist in no time, but don’t forget to practice. As for blogs, I sometimes read Daily Writing Tips.

As you probably know, almost every successful writer has a few tips to offer. My personal favorite is Steven Pressfield’s. Here is what he says:

“Three steps.

First, take Robert McKee’s three-day course: Story. He gives it in Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Dallas, London, everywhere. Check his website, www.mckeestory.com.

Second, read my book, “The War of Art.”

Third, sit down and do it and don’t quit no matter what.

P.S. If you do Step Three, you can skip One and Two. “

Basically, what you need is the will to do it.

In the next days I will start covering the Northern Dacian Limes. Astigan.com will publish a series of articles focused on the principal auxiliary and legionary forts in the northern Dacian province.

Before I analyze the Roman forts, I will write an introductionary article on the castrum and on the conquest of Dacia. As for the forts themselves, I’ll try to provide images for a better comprehension of military life behind ‘Rome’s walls’.

Hope you will enjoy it. Keep an eye on Astigan.com to catch the first part of the series.

Image: Porta Praetoria, Porolissum - one of the main forts on the Northern Dacian Limes.

When I first discovered Chrome, two weeks ago I guessed, I said “finally a fast and reliable browser”. Not that I didn’t like Firefox, but it repeteadly crashed and I had a bug that wouldn’t allow me to view images, so I went on searching for another browser.

My next choice was Apple’s Safari. Don’t ask why. This choice was probably the consequence of using Firefox for as long as I know. Actually, back in the old days, probably ancient days, I used Opera, but then Mozilla came along.

Anyway, I don’t know why exactly I picked Safari. But the software proved to be reliable indeed, however, it has a big disturbing feature - it comes with standard Fonts so it won’t display the site entirely as it should be. Of course you can customize this, but hey… I’m a lazy and too comfortable user. Nevertheless I used this browser for a few days until it proved that it is not what I want.

My next stop was Konqueror. The problem here is that I never got to use it, I just tried to figure it out how to make it work for Windows. Anyway, I didn’t. However, If you ask me this is the best web browser name I have ever seen. Konqueror Web Browser - it is like the software literally says to you “explore the web and konquer it”. If I was the mind behind the software I’d write the motto as following: “Veni, Vidi, Vici”.

Finally, my last stop before Chrome was Flock. This browser is based on everything that makes Mozilla Firefox tick. Actually, it’s a perfect name for a web browser aimed to ease the use of the countless social networking sites out there. I still use this one from time to time, especially when I work with pictures from the Public Domain. Flock enables me to simply drag and drop the images into Photoshop, something that neither Chrome nor the latest version of Firefox allow.

It is also a powerful tool if you are an active Digg user. It displays everything you need on your left sidebar, which, of course, you can customize as you wish. The ‘Digg friends Easy’ plugin work with Flock as well. But, beware of this plugin as Digg will recognize it as a script (which it actually is) and you’ll get banned.

I use Chrome since the day it was launched and I can’t find anything that I don’t like about it. Maybe there is something, but clearly not enough to make me uninstall it - not allowing me to drag and drop images in Photoshop. However, this might be good in the fight to stop image piracy.

Chrome’s launch was a great surprise, especially for Mozilla. A few years ago, Google and Mozilla signed an agreement and the later could use Google as its primary search engine. This boosted the numbers of Mozilla users and Google got their share as well.

Just days after the launch, Google officially said that they do not intend to compete with any web browser and that Chrome is open source. I do not exactly know how the browser business works and I wrote few articles on business in general, but even a blind man could see the competition rising from this release.

1,102 teenagers were part of the research and 97 per cent of them, aged 12-17, played video games. From this percentage, 99 percent of boys said they did play games and 94 percent of girls did too. Additionally, most of them are frequent players.

I’m curious how many read (and play) the good old Dungeons and Dragons books? And with a mind on this, does reading books for pleasure really exists?

Read the GameSpot article here.

As you may have noticed, I’ve launched the new version of vladjecan.com. Now this website will serve as a portfolio and as a blog.

Additionally, I’ve updated my Bio and the Selected Articles page.