Notes

This story was hard. When I wrote the initial plan for the Saga of Life, years ago, I subdivided our history into its largest “time periods”. I had barely any writing experience and thought this was a logical approach.

Now that the Saga of Life has nearly thirty stories, however, I know this was too general. The document/idea for this story had only a single note: “a story about Germanic tribes (Barbarians) and so also the Romans” Well, yeah, that’s not great. I needed something more specific.

So I did research, grabbed a few recurring characters, found some interesting bits of history … and before I knew it, the story was too full. When the first draft was done, I still had 2,000 words of notes and interesting bits to add! And I was already at my word limit! (Which, for the Saga of Life, is generally ~15,000 words max.)

That’s why this story, so far, has been the one with the most (impactful) edits and rewrites. I mean, the original main character isn’t even present at all in the final draft anymore ;)

And now onto its content.

First of all, these animals can “bleat” (baa-baa or bar-bar): goats, sheep, seals, and giraffes. The more you know …

Secondly, the wolves were chosen as the main Amori species for a reason. One of my very first stories—now ten years old and not published in the Saga yet—was about wolves and how they fought the gods in the First Conflict. But most of all, wolves play a huge role in the creation and mythology of Rome and the Roman Empire. (Also, they held dogs as pets.)

Romans vs Barbarians

The Amori represent the Romans, and Amor their capital of Rome. This story takes place relatively early in their empire’s lifetime.

The Barbarians are, as the story remarks, a far too general term for what is actually a diverse collection of tribes. The most well-known are the Germanic tribes, from whom Germany received its name.

The Romans and Barbarians weren’t necessarily friends. But the Barbarians were numerous. They basically walked all over Europe, traveling everywhere they wanted, taking in new territory (and being a threat) at all times.

At the same time, the Barbarians had almost no laws or structure. They had no large cities. They did not gather money or resources, or trade at a large scale. They lived more simply and tried to stick to the natural lifestyle of old. (The example from the story, in which they forced people to only stay on the same plot of land for short periods, is how certain tribes really worked.)

So what did the Romans do? They hired Barbarians to fight against the other Barbarians!

For a while, the Huns (Hens) were they’re kind of “police” outside of the empire. They paid them to keep the other barbarians at bay. This probably helped the Huns grow large and dangerous in the first place …

… until the Hunts decided enough was enough and turned on the Romans. By now, they were so powerful that they were a large factor in the downfall of the Roman empire.

The word Barbarian is thus not necessarily “correct”. The Greeks used it first—because they came in contact with these tribes first—merely to say “those who do not speak our language”. Then it changed into a general term for “foreigner” or “those not from here”. And over the years, it snuck into our language as “those who are uncivilized or live without structure or law”.

Which is only partially true. The fact those Germanic tribes survived for so long, and were so influential, and kind of “won” in the end … reveals they were doing something right. Their life was “tougher” in the sense that they didn’t have the certainty, luxury or comfort that the Roman empire had.

But this story is all about the question whether that was a good or a bad thing.

It, hopefully, makes you realize the fact that all our rules (written into law or cultural) are by definition made up. And whether you agree or not. Wearing clothes is a choice, not a law of the universe. The idea that you may only have a single partner is a choice, not a certainty. Laws about justice, equality or punishment for those we deem wrong—no matter how well intentioned—is a choice.

The entire idea of “civilization” can only exist if we think about what “lack of civilization” means, and vice versa.

About the laws

Yes, the Romans had laws against adultery. Which meant that everyone was allowed a single partner (of the opposite sex) and sharing the bed with anyone else could have a severe punishment.

As so often happens in our history, this punishment was not the same for men and women. A woman who cheated would be sentenced to death. A man who cheated on his wife could go free if he “had a good enough reason”.

Similarly, a woman was not allowed to sue anyone. If you were a woman, and your man cheated on you, you’d have to ask your father to sue them.

As stated in the story, all those laws only considered Romans, not foreigners.

(This did not mean that foreigners were by definition criminals and could be treated however you wished. It meant that if they got into trouble, the rules applied to them were often different. This mostly applied to trade laws, as foreigners usually merely visited for trading. Tourism wasn’t a big thing in a time period when it took half a year to walk to your favorite beach.)

This story talks about how laws have always been abused or been open to interpretation and exceptions.

Both the Romans and Barbarians did put a lot of weight behind witnesses. The more witnesses you could find—preferably reputable men, certainly no slaves—the better your case. They had, strangely enough, no recording equipment or DNA analysis.

For the Germanic tribes, that’s how far it went. They were relatively free, egalitarian and indeed “unstructured”. The Romans went much further with a much larger, more specific, and more important system of law.

I could not find any proof that the testimony of a royal family member would automatically be considered evidence. That story idea is mostly based on similar laws in our modern age. In America, for example, a testimony greatly increases in value if it’s made by someone who knows they are about to die soon. The idea behind it is that they have “no more reason to lie”.

Not a great idea, if you ask me. But it’s part of our reality, so similar ideas became part of this story.

I considered delving deeper into laws, but, well, the story was already too full! And the Romans loved inventing new laws and systems of governing, creating too many to count. Don’t worry, the Amori will return often enough during the entire Saga of Life.

Is this still suitable for children?

I want to say something about this, again.

Everything is for children. Everything is for everyone!

Especially a story about civilization, made-up rules, whether culture is good or bad, should not censor or present things better than they are.

I did add those narrator paragraphs—as each Saga story does—to balance the tone. Additionally, this is one of the reasons the Saga tells fantasy stories with animal characters: to create distance. (It’s much easier to say someone is naked when, well, it just means you’re looking at the fur of a regular wolf. If this story was about humans, such statements/scenes would be treated differently.)

At the same time, this story is still extremely mild. Who studies history will immediately learn that the river of humanity is colored the deepest red and floods time and time again. Our history and what humans did to other humans is dark, grim, and terrible, to say the least. This story is still one with talking animals, with jokes and magic, and I hope to find a balance that way.

A balance that will eventually lead us to a world in which everyone has true freedom of speech. A world in which stories can be about anything, people are allowed to think and say anything, to think for themselves and make their own decisions. In which we hide nothing for children or adults, boys or girls.

As opposed to a world in which everyone just parrots each other’s views like the Romans. Accept slavery, place women only a slight step above that, drink wine all day until you die from it, and so forth.

The Romans believed they were the pinnacle of civilization. And they were, in many ways, at that time. The reason we know better now is because people stood up, thought for themselves, and fought for freedom. Freedom to tell any story, to read any story, and to treat every human as their own individual—be they children or adults.

Or … do we even know better now?