The Roman senate during the monarchy

Feb 2011
942
Scotland
#2
Hi Patrick,

Ive seen your posts in relation to your blog; it's a pity you have had no responses yet and although i don't blog myself, I hope I might be able to give some useful feedback.

It's a laudable project of impressive scope and your passion for Roman history is apparent.The website is nicely presented.

The early history is of course made difficult by lack of information and I note in your preamble that you say that you will be starting with mythology. However, since you will presumably be gquoting historical data later on, I do think this bears repetition in each segment where this situation applies; it would also be worth stating what little is known or hypthesised, perhaps quoting modern writers such as Beard or Cornell. For instance, they think it most unlikely that there ever was a 'Romulus' or 'Mr. Rome'.

Second- who are your intended audience? Are they youngsters with little grounding in Roman history or are you looking for people such as yourself, such as you meet on Historum? Is your chatty/flippant style the correct approach for them? What is the purpose of the blog? Is the intention to teach, or to discuss or debate, or maybe take a more lighthearted approach? Are you hoping to obtain sufficient audience to gain advertising revenue? Do you have the correct style for your target audience? Are you advertising your blog to the correct 'market' for this audience?

Whilst I had taken an interest in Romans as quite a small child, (based on some Timpo figures at a local department store and books by Bryant and Unstead), what really got me passionately interested was a book at secondary school (c 1972) called 'The Story of Rome' by Mary Macgregor (c1928) . This was basically Roman myths and legend, much like your content so far. I think your current content is great for that age group but possibly at this stage somewhat too basic for many Historum contributors to respond to.

Finally, I do think that whilst grammar may not be a strong suit for all of us, it is certainly worth having your contributions proof-read and checked for correct grammar and spelling as well as consistency. I am sure you have a great deal of knowledge to impart, but you are selling yourself short if you allow a significant number of errors of this nature in your work- readers can and will (surely unfairly) judge you by it.
 
#3
Hi Patrick,

Ive seen your posts in relation to your blog; it's a pity you have had no responses yet and although i don't blog myself, I hope I might be able to give some useful feedback.

It's a laudable project of impressive scope and your passion for Roman history is apparent.The website is nicely presented.

The early history is of course made difficult by lack of information and I note in your preamble that you say that you will be starting with mythology. However, since you will presumably be gquoting historical data later on, I do think this bears repetition in each segment where this situation applies; it would also be worth stating what little is known or hypthesised, perhaps quoting modern writers such as Beard or Cornell. For instance, they think it most unlikely that there ever was a 'Romulus' or 'Mr. Rome'.

Second- who are your intended audience? Are they youngsters with little grounding in Roman history or are you looking for people such as yourself, such as you meet on Historum? Is your chatty/flippant style the correct approach for them? What is the purpose of the blog? Is the intention to teach, or to discuss or debate, or maybe take a more lighthearted approach? Are you hoping to obtain sufficient audience to gain advertising revenue? Do you have the correct style for your target audience? Are you advertising your blog to the correct 'market' for this audience?

Whilst I had taken an interest in Romans as quite a small child, (based on some Timpo figures at a local department store and books by Bryant and Unstead), what really got me passionately interested was a book at secondary school (c 1972) called 'The Story of Rome' by Mary Macgregor (c1928) . This was basically Roman myths and legend, much like your content so far. I think your current content is great for that age group but possibly at this stage somewhat too basic for many Historum contributors to respond to.

Finally, I do think that whilst grammar may not be a strong suit for all of us, it is certainly worth having your contributions proof-read and checked for correct grammar and spelling as well as consistency. I am sure you have a great deal of knowledge to impart, but you are selling yourself short if you allow a significant number of errors of this nature in your work- readers can and will (surely unfairly) judge you by it.
Thank you those are some great comments just what I was looking for I’ll look to take them all on board
 

Similar History Discussions