How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[diegis]

You bring up some very valid comparisons but you could remove Roman and substitute ancient Chinese for all of them and it would apply just as much. There are only so many ways to operate militarily, especially at a preelectronic, premodern era. In order to communicate, flags and musical instruments would be necessary. In order to shoot arrows and rocks a long way, torsion devices would need to be created. In order for soldiers to proficient or in shape and carry out combat operations, training and physical conditioning is necessary. Spies and scouts were not created by or even unique to the Roman, nor was the concept of training, professionalized militaries, separating large groups of warriors into cohesives subunits, or any of the other examples you provided. Maybe the medicos, but most of them would have been quacks anyway with little real knowledge (as compared to modern medics in western nations).

The militaries of the modern western world are all based on the military systems of England, France, America, Russia, and Germany of the 19th-20th centuries, who were pioneers of their day. Add in a touch of modern ideas that originated after WWII, such as equality and human rights. Before that, those militaries evolved from Age of Enlightenment armies and late Renaissance versions, like the Swiss, French and Spanish, who dominated militarily. Before that, during the Medieval era, there was a military system in western Europe based on concepts like feudalism. Before that, there were barbarian tribes. What I am trying to get at, is that the similarities we see between the modern military and the Romans isn't the result of evolutionary progress, its cosmetic. The Romans (at least the military systems of the Republic and Principate era) were specific to a narrow time frame and culture and ceased to exist even in the late Roman army. Those similarities exist because "efficient" militaries by nature have to act a specific way. We don't do things because the Romans did it that way, we do them because sometimes the reason for doing something is the same reason they would do something, so you end up with similar concepts and methods of dealing with problems. At a glance its always interesting to see the similarities. But look deeper and those similarities disappear, as the Romans were a very unique people, who did things completely different from their own contemporaries.

Well, I suppose the comparision with Chinese is a good one too, however Romans were here (in Europe / "western world") and were known (as much as they were), unlike the Chinese.

I agree too that people from different geographical areas and even different time periods may come up at the end with similar concepts and methods of dealing with similar problems.
I agree as well that some things evolved, other inovations appeared (especially after aparition and spread of firearms, and not just bigger guns but individual firearms too, even if the concept of supressive fire or "sniping" may have existed since the ancient time of bow and arrows).

But I still do see the Roman army as the archetype of (at least many) modern "western" armies, even if just at image level or in subconsciousness. I mentioned the example with the training, oreder and discipline, the eagle symbol, the triumphal marches with shiny weapons and uniforms, the names and nicknames of military units. Even some extreme nationalists as Nazis used symbology of Romans, same marchings, the salute (thought to be of Roman origin, but thats debatable), the "heil Hitler" vs "ave Caesar", the flags with the eagle on top which was basically a copy of the Roman legions vexiliums, just replacing their emblems with a zvastica etc.

Yes, the Roman army was unique back then (maybe only Dacians come a bit more closer as organization, including the use of catapults and balistae on the batlefield or during sieges but nevertheless they had Roman military advisers before, either desertors either officially send by Romans).
But the way they were (or what we know about) have sometimes too striking similarities to overlook them.
They have a selection process, the new recruits were trained, have a bureaucracy (from keeping all sorts of evidences in their unit to paying the salaries to soldiers, and "salary" with its variation in diferent languages is a word coming exactly from the Romans and the payment of legionares).
They were organized in subunits and units (yes, not something unique, but in Europe back then it was), have a name and a flag for those units, and a sense of cohesion and pride for that. They fight too for patriotic reasons at moments (SPQR, glory of Rome, defending the Patria-fatherland etc).
They were part of a larger system of Roman state politic that included politics, spies, bribing, economic deals.

They adopted foreign things when they see them fit or necessary (weapons, armors, tactics), or adapted themselves to enemies when was needed, they have a logistic system that was surpassed just in Napoleonic era. And I think I read somewhere that Vegetius "De re militari" (if I remember correct) was still read in Napoleon army, as a source of inspiration.

Sure, there are many differences as well, I agree with this too, I even mentioned ones. Their society had differences but similarities as well. We can look at urbanization back then, and the cities today.
They had paved roads betwen cities and cities with multilevel buildings (apartment like buildings), sewers, current water (by aqueducts), theaters, libraries, taverns and such (places where you go to drink or eat something), brothels, arenas (for sport or horse races, etc, and obviously the famous gladiator fights), circuses, palaces, temples, gardens, marketplaces with stuffs from all over the world, even firefighters and a sort of police at some point, and as well laws and lawyers and judges (Roman law influences exist even today in "western world").
There where even fans clashes similar with those of football hooligans of our days, I think some fans of gladiators of a town clashed with some from other town if I rememebr correct what I read about it.
They do had slavery, indeed, but had too a sort of religious liberty in the empire (with some exceptions), they had a Senat and even two "parties" at some point, fighting for power (populares and optimates), and a Tribune of plebeians who had the "veto" right.

So I think that Romans were different in some ways (very different) but similar (very similar) in other, and some of the things we have today are inspired or influenced by those of them.