07-15-2014, 08:20 AM
I have spent some time re-reading and reviewing (including all the links - and noticing that over a year ago someone else used the word 'propaganda' in a very similar context and didn't get lambasted!) - and a thank you to all who have contributed. Maybe this thread can stand for when someone else asks.
Firstly I would state for the record that, whilst not hiding behind an anonymous internet handle, I reject without qualification, any aspersion of being guilty of racism, xenophobia or religious intolerance.
Secondly....
No, I'm not, I promise. If I have given that impression (which I certainly didn't try, nor wish, to), then it is simply due to the vagaries of internet writing and language mis-communication.
In addition - I wish to re-state that I find archaeology (the search and study of real, tangible, artefacts), the best source of real evidence (patchy though it can sometimes be). The only thing I genuinely wonder at is the leaps of complete conjecture that often seem to be made to support very sketchy theories and ideas.
What I would suggest, even plead for, is that - where there is no particular evidence (of any sort), or there is contrary evidence, or even the possibility of obfuscated evidence; then all forum contributors should certainly be able to query, question and, dare I say it, suggest alternatives, based upon: related knowledge (tactical or drill precepts throughout the ages); or simple physics and mathematics (including 'common sense'); or even practical experience (many militaries still teach fundamentals alongside specifics from our own age). For those people might have a point. Demanding 'proof' (from an ancient source) is absolutely specious when the subject is about trying to fill gaps in the ancient sources. Then getting the 'the Romans were different ' shield out gets us nowhere.
So - why do I remain confused or not understanding (and no, I'm not a trained classicist)...
Laws - laws change and are supported by moral principles and religious beliefs. Laws constrain, hopefully deter by punishments, but still get broken. Laws are an indicator of what is acceptable behaviour at any particular time; but they don't prevent the basic drives and needs of the human brain
Nutrition/Lifestyle - can affect good health, bad health, size, strength, expected age and many other things, but they don't change that we eat, sleep, produce waste, nor that we have eyes, ears, arms legs and the biological need to procreate - that haven't changed in an extremely long time
Slavery - the vast majority of recorded history has seen slavery, the Romans were simply in the middle of that time. And it hasn't entirely gone away even now!
The killing of girl children (a specific raised as one of the differences) - has again happened throughout history and still happens today, if we believe the information we are given about China (and other places) and the numbers of late elective abortions in several places, including my own country
Violence and the desire to see death - well, if I simply look at our entertainment media am I wrong to consider the similarity between 'bread and circuses' and 'fast food and 'slasher' movies'. The desire to see people suffer or be humiliated pervades our 'reality TV'. The continued existence of blood sports, cage fights, badger baiting, cock fights, dog fights........
Religion - many still 'pray', does it matter whether it's one god or many? Looking at "chicken entrails" - is that different to reading tea leaves or devouring the horoscopes?
That's why I ask - and that's why I simply don't get it. Particularly within the context I raised the question in the first place. Bryan contentedly referenced back to a recent discussion, but what is the issue?
In context (and with certain reference to past discussions where this has occurred), please can we limit the detailing of 'differences' specifically to the physical and mental needs of:
- Individual drills, formation drills and the needs required to conduct tactical movement around the battlefield
If we can do that, I would certainly appreciate it, for it would help me understand.
But if it's simply that some don't like the words I use - words that seek only to communicate ideas, then that's silly.
I'll finish with one that really took me by surprise - for it simply never occurred to me that there was any contention over what standards (signum, etc) were for (not how they were used or trained or imbued with awe) - it was something I have simply known. Providing evidence for something so basic is nigh on impossible - but now I know that it can be an issue.
Firstly I would state for the record that, whilst not hiding behind an anonymous internet handle, I reject without qualification, any aspersion of being guilty of racism, xenophobia or religious intolerance.
Secondly....
Quote:MD post=357237 Wrote:Isn't all that the point Mark Hygate is trying to make?I think he's going further than that. My apologies if I have this wrong, but Mark seems to be suggesting that we can use our own relevant life experiences (in his case, his military background) to fill in the gaps of ancient history, and give us insights unavailable to academic historians tied to evidence-based analysis..................
No, I'm not, I promise. If I have given that impression (which I certainly didn't try, nor wish, to), then it is simply due to the vagaries of internet writing and language mis-communication.
In addition - I wish to re-state that I find archaeology (the search and study of real, tangible, artefacts), the best source of real evidence (patchy though it can sometimes be). The only thing I genuinely wonder at is the leaps of complete conjecture that often seem to be made to support very sketchy theories and ideas.
What I would suggest, even plead for, is that - where there is no particular evidence (of any sort), or there is contrary evidence, or even the possibility of obfuscated evidence; then all forum contributors should certainly be able to query, question and, dare I say it, suggest alternatives, based upon: related knowledge (tactical or drill precepts throughout the ages); or simple physics and mathematics (including 'common sense'); or even practical experience (many militaries still teach fundamentals alongside specifics from our own age). For those people might have a point. Demanding 'proof' (from an ancient source) is absolutely specious when the subject is about trying to fill gaps in the ancient sources. Then getting the 'the Romans were different ' shield out gets us nowhere.
So - why do I remain confused or not understanding (and no, I'm not a trained classicist)...
Laws - laws change and are supported by moral principles and religious beliefs. Laws constrain, hopefully deter by punishments, but still get broken. Laws are an indicator of what is acceptable behaviour at any particular time; but they don't prevent the basic drives and needs of the human brain
Nutrition/Lifestyle - can affect good health, bad health, size, strength, expected age and many other things, but they don't change that we eat, sleep, produce waste, nor that we have eyes, ears, arms legs and the biological need to procreate - that haven't changed in an extremely long time
Slavery - the vast majority of recorded history has seen slavery, the Romans were simply in the middle of that time. And it hasn't entirely gone away even now!
The killing of girl children (a specific raised as one of the differences) - has again happened throughout history and still happens today, if we believe the information we are given about China (and other places) and the numbers of late elective abortions in several places, including my own country
Violence and the desire to see death - well, if I simply look at our entertainment media am I wrong to consider the similarity between 'bread and circuses' and 'fast food and 'slasher' movies'. The desire to see people suffer or be humiliated pervades our 'reality TV'. The continued existence of blood sports, cage fights, badger baiting, cock fights, dog fights........
Religion - many still 'pray', does it matter whether it's one god or many? Looking at "chicken entrails" - is that different to reading tea leaves or devouring the horoscopes?
That's why I ask - and that's why I simply don't get it. Particularly within the context I raised the question in the first place. Bryan contentedly referenced back to a recent discussion, but what is the issue?
In context (and with certain reference to past discussions where this has occurred), please can we limit the detailing of 'differences' specifically to the physical and mental needs of:
- Individual drills, formation drills and the needs required to conduct tactical movement around the battlefield
If we can do that, I would certainly appreciate it, for it would help me understand.
But if it's simply that some don't like the words I use - words that seek only to communicate ideas, then that's silly.
I'll finish with one that really took me by surprise - for it simply never occurred to me that there was any contention over what standards (signum, etc) were for (not how they were used or trained or imbued with awe) - it was something I have simply known. Providing evidence for something so basic is nigh on impossible - but now I know that it can be an issue.
