How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[thiswayup]

thus I will unappologetically submit that "generation why" sloppily assembled with their sense of entitlement and with a mind towards the MANY organizational safety's that have made this mess possible, could never hold a candle to what it was to serve in the legions.

I love my country, I love my army, but good gods daaaamn, have yall looked around lately?

The US militia defending Washington in 1812 would have been hooted at by Italian troops from WW2 for their lack of fighting spirit. US troops fragged officers in the Mexican-American War. They routed wholesale in the Battle Of The Bulge, and theft of supplies, by US soldiers, substantially slowed the progress of the war and increased the death toll among the small minority of real combat troops. As for the black comedies of Korea and Vietnam... Which is not to say there wasn't heroism and achievement too. In fact, this is the point: by historical standards, the people who are whining about are doing more than adequately.

But picking on Generation Y and doing the "Men were made of iron once!" speech... not a great idea. And as objectionable as you seem to find political correctness, I'm willing to bet it doesn't hurt combat effectiveness as much as Jim Crow did.

[Eleatic Guest]

Combat effectiveness is enormously - and complexly and subtly - dependent on culture. If you don't understand this, then consider the differing behaviour of, say, Japanese and Italian infantry in WW2.

Or, to take a current example, of ISIS and the Iraqi army. I always wondered how small armies like Alexander's, Tariq's Moors, the Mongols or the Bolshevik could prevail despite being vastly outnumbered. And now we witness in our times where the material advantage is more important than ever how a band of several hundred jihadists, due to their sheer determination, could rout 30.000 well-trained and -equipped soldiers at Mossul, who were mentally not prepared to fight, let alone die in combat.

[Benjamin Abbott]

I advise caution when examining the various uses of antiquity in the sixteenth century and on. Certainly writers like Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli imagined themselves as drawing on ancient wisdom, but in my reading what he and others in that period wrote about the Romans came as much from sixteenth-century European desires as from classical history. Roman and Greek military structures functioned as symbols of the discipline Machiavelli and company wanted to see in sixteenth-century armies. As recent scholarship shows, Roman soldiers weren't necessarily as mechanically disciplined as Machiavelli assumed and as we sometimes assume. This isn't to say sixteenth-century Europeans simply used antiquity for their own purposes, but that they interpreted ancient history within their own cultural matrix. The same goes double for later attempts to channel ancient Rome for military and social agendas.

Were the stereotypical time-machine scenario to take place, with folks from here in the twenty-first century going back to Rome, I suspect we'd be astounded by both the continuities and discontinuities between us and them. I view the similarities and differences as equally profound.

[Walhaz]

they interpreted ancient history within their own cultural matrix. The same goes double for later attempts to channel ancient Rome for military and social agendas.

This is indeed the most serious problem when considering how "different" the Romans were. Without a lifetime of context in their worldview (and they probably had quite a few competing worldviews, just as we have now, complicating the matter even further), we can't really identify where the differences are. We can point at some differences and similarities, but we can't actually be certain that they really are differences or similarities. They may appear to us to be so, but possibly the similarities are only superficial and exist for reasons totally alien/incomprehensible/invisible to us.

The same would go for a Roman transferred to modern times. No doubt an ancient Roman would identify differences and similarities between his culture and our own, but without the context that informs our cultures/worldviews (and there are a lot of them, again) he would just be guessing, and possibly drawing parallels that do not in fact exist.

Yes, there are over-arching human drives, emotions, and needs that cross all boundaries of culture and time; the problem is that the only ones that can be agreed upon are very abstract (such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and so only with the utmost caution can we infer from these abstracts to anything specific. Even then, we are going way out on a limb. Also, this thread seems to be straying off-topic.....

[Mark Hygate]

................. Even then, we are going way out on a limb. Also, this thread seems to be straying off-topic.....

Actually, no, a thank you to both of the last two posters - that's just the sort of comment I was after initially.

The defence-wall that is - 'well, the Romans were so different that no modern person can make any comment based upon common sense or personal experience' is un-breachable; however much I may think the foundation is shaky and thus have to challenge it and see if I could find out why.

I now think I know why.

[Scipio Second]

And from what history book did you obtain all these "facts"? Russian maybe?

Publius Quinctius Petrus Augustinus
(aka Pierre A. Kleff, Jr,.)

[Benjamin Abbott]

The graffiti from Pompeii has evoked the most intense and uncanny sense of similarity for me personally. I don't think we should dismiss these feelings of similarity, but we should recognize their uncertain and conjectural nature. On the military side of things, I suspect we can learn plenty from later sources on similar weapons (like Renaissance sources), contemporary reenactment, and 20th/21st-century combat. When it comes to biomechanics and whatnot, I really don't think anything important has changed.

[Bryan]

The defence-wall that is - 'well, the Romans were so different that no modern person can make any comment based upon common sense or personal experience' is un-breachable; however much I may think the foundation is shaky and thus have to challenge it and see if I could find out why.
I now think I know why.

Examples of personal experiences that could prove a point are "I spent all day throwing a pilum against well constructed shields and xyz happened" or "I stabbed some guy in the chest with a sword and it went down like this..." But you aren't doing that. As an example, you've taken leadership lessons you learned in the British Army in the 20th century (were you even combat arms? or were you an engineer or something? Because that makes a difference) and applied those lessons to ancient Rome to support your assertions that someone living 2,000 years before you in a foreign warrior culture was just like the modern era "because it makes sense." I served in the military myself and don't agree with your leadership methods and conclusions, so personal experiences obviously varies, as do cultural norms, and common sense obviously isn't common between the two of us over this situation. In certain situations, personal experiences can come into play, in others, especially dealing with training methology and mindset, modern methods have little in common with ancient ones, as many modern methods used ancient and other historical examples and evolved from them. Another example, just because you trained some cadets in marching on a drill field doesn't equate to training a century to use a specific formation battle tactic in a combat situation. The motives themselves vary. Modern drill is about looking pretty and instantly responding to voice commands. Ancient drill was purely about performing well in battle, under really terrible conditions. Those two situations are totally different from one another yet its common to read examples of former military using modern drill and ceremony techniques and methods to support their assertions. It just sounds wrong to me.

thiswayup provided a fantastic example of the difficulties of attempting to mimic without understanding the cultural differences.

And that's only the start of the problem. Because military effectiveness depends greatly on culture. US military advisors - who do know how US troops are trained! - can't get modern Arab troops to behave like US ones, because their cultural background is so different. See eg
www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amd...deatkine_arabs1.html

I trained Iraqi soldiers and can't stress how much this is true. Even with the language barrier, considering how hard we tried we could never make much headway attempting to teach those guys to act and perform like us because culturally, there were just too many differences. I've trained other cultural groups and had lots more success because they were more similar mindset wise to Americans, so they could understand our methods. A few entertaining anecdotal examples:
- I've never seen braver acts under fire, sometimes those guys (Iraqi soldiers) would do things that would make a Medal of Honor awardee cringe. Like suicidal acts of bravery or foolishness, depending on your perspective. Other times, these same people would fold in combat and start crying and wailing fits, while bullets were still flying and skipping around, because a buddy got smoked. I don't mean a few tears, I'm talking full on "Why God why?" on your knees with arms outstretched to the heavens. Modern Americans would never do those same things, just too dangerous.
- We tried teaching them marksmanship and that was probably the most frustrating. You try teaching sight alignment to a group of guys who think that if God wanted them to hit the target he will make the bullets hit them. We called it In'Shallah Marksmanship, because if they hit anything, God Willed it.
- And don't even get me started on Man Love Thursdays and how that went over with us westerners. Really gross.
- Inability to say "no" is ingrained in their culture. To say you can't do something is insulting not only to yourself (speaks to incompetence) but with whoever you are dealing with. Instead, they will say "yes" even when they know they mean "no." This goes real well with mission planning. "We need you to have your men at such and such place at 0600 in the morning. Will that be okay? Will you have enough time to get things organized to meet that time hack?"
"Sure, yes, yes. Of course."
And they don't show up till afternoon and forget half their men and they didn't fuel up their vehicles all the way too...

Other veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will recognize these cultural issues. It was like being in on an alien planet sometimes. But in hindsight, the Iraqis had more in common culturally with ancient Romans than we, the Americans, did, as they were fatalistic and superstitious, had a corrupt and incompetent officer class based off patronage system, believed in bravery in battle imbeded as part of culture (like virtus), had similar concepts of family life, tribal powers and the power of the man of the family (like paterfamilia), had similar sexual norms, etc.

[Mark Hygate]

Bryan (as only my chief protagonist it seems, but anyone who is even only vaguely interested),

Well, I shall happily continue to 'tilt at windmills' if necessary, if for no other reason than to raise a little doubt in all the apparent certainty. I am particularly sad if some modern 'soldiers' view of 'officers' is bad (and if there are examples like we may have seen in 'Heartbreak Ridge' (sic), then we might all sympathise), but I also accept that some Americans (in this case, but they are not alone) have a certain view of Britain and the British Army, but that is a part of their history and culture. To denigrate on that basis belittles their own intelligence, however. 'Officers' are not 'trained' to be leaders. Inherent leadership skills can be developed and possibly enhanced through training and experience, but there has to be something there in the first place.

It is perhaps a blinkered version of the 'scholarly' viewpoint , but there seems to be an approach taken here that I have seen before(and not just here) that builds an 'ivory tower' upon very limited and sketchy information. That edifice is continually built upon by others who only add together previous work (whilst referencing to show that they have) and shape the result slightly differently to say the same things in perhaps a slightly different way. In the main, however, they take no risk, don't go out on a limb and base everything on a strict reliance on what they can read (and therefore show to others as 'proof' - and that's if they even read the original) - they publish and can join the ranks.

The archaeological evidence that we find is probably best of all, but it tends to show tiny glimpses of the past and, as they will confirm, context is everything.

But it's the limited written evidence that is the main issue - for it is so limited. Calling it 'evidence' is strong, for it is certainly not 'proof', but at best 'hearsay'. Some has survived the centuries; the majority that has survived has done so only because it was firstly deemed relevant by archivists and then copied by monks - and only that was deemed acceptable has been allowed to exist, by a church that was notoriously conservative at the time (and in the centuries following).

Even if we can vainly hope that it has survived relatively unscathed a lot of the prose is still just a 'story', it's only that it talks about things of a bygone age that it is history, but it remains just words on a page. That story was written by people who wanted to be read - and they made it interesting otherwise it would not be read - and they concentrated on the good bits, often the salacious bits. It is indeed possible that some of that information is wrong or made up; reasonably possible that some of it has been changed, edited or even just copied incorrectly; and it is highly probable, if not a likely certainty that what we read is only a part of the entire story.

This forum is dedicated to the Roman Military - a military that would have needed an equally comprehensive bureaucracy behind it ; but there is precious little, if any, of that shown in the classic histories (although it's those records they must have accessed to produce some of the detail). In fact, and especially given the thread this last week on Human Waste, the defence often cited by the strict scholarly approach is that if it was not written about, then it never happened! The statement, 'the Romans were different and you have no comprehension' based upon some of the points raised would imply that they were that different - for they must not have produced said waste - for it's not mentioned..... Silly isn't it. For now and then archaeology shows us some of it - latrines in forts and scraps of lists, more lists and yet more lists - lists that are all produced as part of 'command and control and logistics'. It had to happen.

So, we have a tall edifice of published research based upon very sketchy hearsay evidence, but defended by an impenetrable wall that 'mere mortals' cannot possible understand.

The Romans were just men - men that are an essential part of the Western historical background that the vast majority of us share. Our militaries are based upon the Greek and particularly Roman constructs, started in the Middle East with the first City States and Farmers and exported wherever Europeans have touched. It is also no surprise at all that Western 'methods' don't work with Hill Tribes and Nomads, for they don't have anything like that background. But take a baby from that environment and have them grow up in the West and they will behave just the same as most of us do.

I am here because I have great interest, I am here to learn and, if I possibly am able to, to contribute as well; others may also have something to contribute based upon their own knowledge that may possibly make people think. I am often astounded by the knowledge (and particularly the ability to show off references as part of their contributions) of many, but am certainly frustrated by the strict 'evidence' approach and certainly the 'modern knowledge and experience is of no value' - to both of which I say 'poppycock, balderdash and look closely, for the Imperator may have no clothes'! I ask only that a pause is sometimes taken as you may start to realise the vast amount of information on a subject under discussion that was not recorded - because it's not very exciting.

You don't have to easily accept and I know how difficult it can be to look down from that ivory tower surrounded by its nice big wall - but do go back and re-look at the foundations, for they are very sandy.

But given it's some of the oldest actual history of our period that we have available - a quote from dear old Polybius:

(XII.25g) "...it is impossible for someone who lacks military experience to write well about warfare,..... Nothing written by authors who rely on mere book-learning has the clarity that comes from personal experience, and so nothing is gained by reading their work."

I don't agree entirely, for a hope of complete understanding can come from many viewpoints, but I think the point is well made.

[Bryan]

Mark,

I find it funny and a bit exasperating that you can claim that there exists cultural differences the US and UK militaries, between "some Americans (in this case, but they are not alone) have a certain view of Britain and the British Army, but that is a part of their history and culture.", when America literally was part of Britain a little over two centuries ago before it broke off, and having fought continuously as allies in the 20th century, not counting training exercises, etc. But then you can't accept that a completely different culture, which existed 2,000 years ago in Italy, is different from the modern UK.

In the most vague and generalistic ways are the modern military of the UK based upon a system similar to ancient Rome, especially during the Republic.

Some similarities between UK and Rome:
- Use of symbols or uniforms to differentiate officers
- Formed in units, even some smaller subunits
- Were paid for service
- At one point both conquered lots of other territories with often successful military system
- Conducted training ,such as physical training and weapons training, sometimes

Let's take a look at some differences:
- Republican Militia Army (Rome) vs. Professional Standing Army (UK)
- Generals and Officers are all Politicians or amateurs (Rome) vs. Professional Officer Corps (UK)
- No Formal Officer Training (Rome) vs. Completely standardized Training Program (UK)
- Methods and Tactics Based on Mos Maoirum (Rome) and Tradition vs. Established Doctrine Provided by Centralized Command Authority Based on Tradition and Efficiency (UK)
- Excessive use of Violence in Society and Warfare (Rome) vs. Banned the Death Penalty and no Corporal Punishment in Military (UK)
- Military methods based on most Destructive Weaponry: Spear, Javelin, Sling, Sword (Rome) vs. Possesses Tanks, Machine Guns, Attack Aircraft and Nuclear Weapons (UK)

You yourself were an officer, yes? You were trained as one at some centralized depot somewhere with hundreds of other officers. The methods of your instruction were specifically written down in the form of lesson plans, a curriculum, checked off by general officers who were in charge of training officers. Many many thousands of other officers received a nearly identical training as you did. Did the Romans have anything similar? No. How did a young Roman learn how to be a centurion? A school were everyone learned from an identical curriculum controlled by the Army? or by experience? Did tribunes go to the Tribune Academy? Did they sit down in class and discuss the pro's and con's of various historical campaigns involving other countries and try to find methods that they could use to revolutionize the Roman military's efficiency? The slow evolution of the Roman military is proof they did not. It only changed when specific leaders commanding specific armies instituted reforms to their own armies, which sometime other commanders after would also institute.

Its no miracle this thread was created during the great debate of the Centurion Position in Battle thread. You even acknowledged it in the opening post.

Mark wrote:
I've certainly been chided for using modern hock: /current phrasing, allusions or parallels - and that's just fine. I and others have also been disparaged from using any comparisons if we have military experience; which (see below) may be very short-sighted. I have also seen re-enactors/experimenters dismissed because they have no idea how things were actually done ~2,000 years ago.

Specifically, these comparisons where when you started comparing centuries to platoons, optios to platoon sergeants, and then trying to place modern "command and management" techniques you learned in the British military onto centurions who didn't go to Centurion School and surely didn't learn the same lessons you did. I didn't even learn the lessons you did. The different and specific definitions you have for "leadership" vs. "commanding" vs. "management" are a modern construction. Management wasn't even used in the 19th century when referring to command and control methods. In that Centurion Position thread, you made some pretty large assumptions and some posters (including myself) simply attempted to correct you. If you want to use your military experience as a source to describe your theories, the UK is a relatively free country and this is the internet after all, you can do so. No one is stopping you. But your experiences "commanding" men might not always translate over to the Romans, let alone even the US military. So if the US and UK are apples and oranges, what does that make the UK and Rome? Apples and some fruit that's been extinct for 2,000 years?

As hard as it is to acknowledge, your common sense isn't common, especially when it flies in the face of what the sources report. Its not an "ivory tower" mentality when you get called out after equating a century to a platoon and then discussing how its obvious that a Roman commanded from the rear because someone taught you that's what officers are supposed to do. Especially when you then declare that all historical and archaeological sources stating otherwise are simply propaganda, in order to support your theory. Its just people debating online and its people attempting to correct what they think is a glaring error. In other words, people are trying to help you see the light.

[diegis]

I am obviously not as knowledgeable as many posters here, but from what I know about Roman army (and hope is close to what is known in reality) they do seem to be a sort of archetypal army for today modern armies (at least some of "western" world).

I too consider we can draw a parallel betwen decuria, centuria, cohors and legions with modern teams/groups/sections, platoons, companies, regiments etc.

Then the discipline, order, training is again something to compare. Even most of the stuffs they train for, marches, using of individual or group weapons (balista, catapults), individual figthing, battle formations etc have a modern corespondent.
Using communication signals (sound or visual ones) to command the troops and training them to follow these. Having spies and scouts. Having a very good logistic, including soldiers carrying their food for few days, their individual weapons, armour etc on them, during marching, those can be see today too in modern armies.

Today artilery have the ancient corespondent in their balistae and catapults, they use too combined arms, with artilery opening fire first, from the distance, as barrage fire or for softening the enemy before the attack, with mobile troops maneuvering, cavalry working in cooperation with infantry and field artilery and archers or so.

They had medical staff with the army, treating the wounded ones right on the battlefield, and I think they had hospitals too in the empire, for those returning from the war.
Polishing your weapons and armour/equipment for inspection or triumphal marches, thats another thing coming from them I think. The eagle on top of modern flags is again a remembering of that of legions vexiliums.

One of the differences that probably existed was that soldiers back then were forced to kill the enemy at an arm lenght distance mostly, using some close combat weapon (sword, spear, dagger/knife, axe etc). This would have require both more physical effort during battle and more "cold blood" (and even skill and determination). Its one thing to shot someone from few tens (if not hundred) meters and is another thing stabing someone or cuting his throat after a couple minutes fight, trying not to slip on the blood and guts of other people (some of them your comrades) already killed or wounded around.
The fights back then were more bloody and personal, and physically exhausting (probably psychologically too).

The martial culture and then the bloody society they have (and not just Romans, but most of other people back then) help them overcome this more easily, sort of make them think is not just OK, but even glorious, and desensitize them in the same time.
Glorious wars, gladiator fights, public executions, killing your own food and even a sort of patriotism (at least for quite a while) make them like that

[Renatus]

Bryan (as only my chief protagonist it seems, but anyone who is even only vaguely interested),

Frankly, who would want to be bothered, if they had to contend with the rant that followed this comment? Hats off to Bryan for trying but, for the rest of us, life's too short.

[Bryan]

I am obviously not as knowledgeable as many posters here, but from what I know about Roman army (and hope is close to what is known in reality) they do seem to be a sort of archetypal army for today modern armies (at least some of "western" world).
I too consider we can draw a parallel betwen decuria, centuria, cohors and legions with modern teams/groups/sections, platoons, companies, regiments etc.
Then the discipline, order, training is again something to compare. Even most of the stuffs they train for, marches, using of individual or group weapons (balista, catapults), individual figthing, battle formations etc have a modern corespondent.
Using communication signals (sound or visual ones) to command the troops and training them to follow these. Having spies and scouts. Having a very good logistic, including soldiers carrying their food for few days, their individual weapons, armour etc on them, during marching, those can be see today too in modern armies.
Today artilery have the ancient corespondent in their balistae and catapults, they use too combined arms, with artilery opening fire first, from the distance, as barrage fire or for softening the enemy before the attack, with mobile troops maneuvering, cavalry working in cooperation with infantry and field artilery and archers or so.
They had medical staff with the army, treating the wounded ones right on the battlefield, and I think they had hospitals too in the empire, for those returning from the war.
Polishing your weapons and armour/equipment for inspection or triumphal marches, thats another thing coming from them I think. The eagle on top of modern flags is again a remembering of that of legions vexiliums.
...

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.

[Nathan Ross]

I ask only that a pause is sometimes taken as you may start to realise the vast amount of information on a subject under discussion that was not recorded - because it's not very exciting.

I'm sure the archaeologists who have spent a life's work picking through the contents of Roman rubbish tips and sewers, peeling off mummy wrappings, laboriously deciphering scraps of papyrus and trying to analyse masses of birdlime-encrusted skeletons in order to tease out just a few more scraps of evidence to help us understand the past would gladly take a pause for reflection on the futility of their endeavours - but I hope they do not.

[Gunthamund Hasding]

@ Mark

Mark I would suggest you to start reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

you will understand " the strict 'evidence' approach "
without method you do nothing, hypothesis is important but you will need to prove it and when a researcher is disregarding facts just because they don't fall into its theory is not good, and a theory should be debated as we do here BTW and of course we can also always agree to disagree.

A lot of people here are researchers or were made researchers by the exploit they are in

I see your enthusiastic about it and it is good so we all are

just my 2 cents
Gelu