How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[Bryan]

Razvan,
Same goes for any 2,000 year old culture whether it be Romans or other. The didn't think or act like you because their world, small similarities aside, was unique and alien to our own.

Hmm, again I must say that some people (not just you) seem to see just that empty part of the glass and ignore the filled one, to say like this.
Yes, in many ways they were very different in the way they saw or do some things (and for many of them I can say this is fortunately, especially slavery thing).
But in other ways they were very similar, in fact we (many modern people) take and use quite few things from them. To see this (and how they think sometime similar to us) look at the Roman Law, that influenced more or less pretty much any law system in "western world" (and not just that but other parts of the world too).
Look just to principles like "everybody is equal before the law" or "everybody is innocent until proven guilty", "everyone have the right to defense", "the accuser should provide the burden of proof" etc. etc., these come from the Romans law.
Two of the main things that shaped the European civilization (even today) were Christianity (spread or/and imposed by Romans) and the Roman law.
So I wont be so extreme to say that they were totally alien to us and thats no way to exist any similarities or influences.

You might want to reexamine your stance on the legal origins.
"Equal before the law" is from ancient Athens.
The legal right to defense" also goes back to Ancient Greece, with rhetorical orators and advocates.
"Burden of Proof" was a creation of proving philosophical debates and then it transcended into the legal arena.
Presumption of Innocence goes along with Burden of Proof as a logical philosophical idea, that the accuser holds that "Proof is on he who asserts, not on he that denies" . It was also created in the late Roman period.

While many of the legal tenets evolved in ancient Rome (which lasted well over a thousand year period), so did the fasces with ax (authority to flog and execute at will), as did the concept of ownership of people, the paterfamilia's power to kill or enslave members of his own family, the frequent killing of girl children, debt slavery, genocide, etc.

For those that really want to understand Mark Hygate's argument on how different Romans and modern human societies are, just read his past posts in the varying recent threads. Judging from his posts in this thread alone, I will admit that it would be hard to frame his stance, but in the context of his other posts in other threads it's a lot easier to see where he actually stands on this manner. This whole thread was only created because posters called him on his assertions that Roman centurions of the Republican/Prinicpate era had similar leadership/command/management styles and methods as a former British officer from late 20th century, as well as his nonstop comparisons between ancient optios (whose role and duties in battle and garrison was never truly made clear by sources) and with *Napoleonic and modern platoon sergeants.

Example #1
Example #2
Example #3

There are many other examples. Further, his frequent mentioning of the lack of biological differences in this thread is confusing as it has never once been used as a counter point against his theories. His detractors simply state that his limited military experiences in situations similar to what a Roman centurion or other leader would face is only evidence that his "small unit" leadership methods are the result of modern ideas and did not exist in the ancient world.

Military experience can often lend some experience and an additional point of view on military history subjects, past or present. However, in this case its an example of using military experience as evidence, even when it flies in the face of the contemporary historical evidence and against the military experiences of other people. Not to mention discounting 2,000 years of military cultural evolution.

*Further Note: Platoon Sergeants didn't even exist in the British army during the Napoleonic army.
http://web.science.mq.edu.au/~susanlaw/n...ranks3.htm