How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[Mark Hygate]

I find it funny and a bit exasperating

Well, that makes it two of us - except I would have said 'almost laughable' and 'rather shocking'. In short it seems that someone who suggests a countervailing view is simply dismissed because the subject(s) were not written about; and with no thought they may, just possibly might, have a point - just because they are alive today....

...that you can claim that there exists cultural differences the US and UK ...... and having fought continuously as allies in the 20th century

This is not the place for that debate, noting simply that America was not part of Britain, but a colony, badly treated and, not unreasonably at all when they had the chance they took it. But if you are ever interested you may wish to review the differences in dates for WWI and WW2 for the US and Britain; the policy of Isolationism the Americans desired; and the detailed provisions of the Lend Lease Act.

... 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.

It's the 'dismissive' modern bit that I don't understand - nor the concentration on extremes...

.....

... Let's take a look at some differences:
- Republican Militia Army (Rome) vs. Professional Standing Army (UK)

Rome - ~400 years from City State Farmer militia to professional army. England(Britain) some 800 years (twice as long) from Saxon fyrd (farmer militia) through Feudal peasant farmer militia to professional army. Delay due to colapse of said Roman empire, pesky Northmen, but reasons for the transition very similar.

- Generals and Officers are all Politicians or amateurs (Rome) vs. Professional Officer Corps (UK)

Rome changes to long term appointees under gifted 'amateurs' (calling Caesar, Pompey, Agrippa, Scipio (both) and so many others 'amateurs' is harsh, but I accept the word) - institutes the tres militae, provides Senators with a praefectus castrorum and eventually replaces most senatorial candidates with 'professional' praefectus legionis. Britain has just the same (if not immeasurably worse - people like Wellington the lovely exception); introduces professional officers only with the artillery and engineers before changing relatively recently in the scheme of things.

... - No Formal Officer Training (Rome) vs. Completely standardized Training Program (UK)

The issue is that there was training and always will be - not how it is carried out

...- Methods and Tactics Based on Mos Maoirum (Rome) and Tradition vs. Established Doctrine Provided by Centralized Command Authority Based on Tradition and Efficiency (UK)

As above - the simple difference is that more can read - the 'modern' world is now more complex - oh to have been a Roman!

...- Excessive use of Violence in Society and Warfare (Rome) vs. Banned the Death Penalty and no Corporal Punishment in Military (UK)

Well, lots could be said about violence in our current society....but when I last checked (1991) 'desertion in the face of the enemy' was still a capital offence (one of the last 3). That it doesn't happen is due to other reasons.

...- Military methods based on most Destructive Weaponry: Spear, Javelin, Sling, Sword (Rome) vs. Possesses Tanks, Machine Guns, Attack Aircraft and Nuclear Weapons (UK)

Really? I think razing Carthage, killing or enslaving all the inhabitents and sowing the ground with salt is not entirely dissimilar to the use of a nuke - except the Romans were more enviromentally friendly. The result is essentially the same.

...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 ..............

We were trained - what does it matter how? The need for training (and why not having it can be bad) is the issue. This is a great example on the terrible concentration on 'how' - and not 'why'.

...these comparisons where when you started comparing centuries to platoons, optios to platoon sergeants, and then trying to place modern "command and management" techniques ................The different and specific definition............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, .................

The nub - I'd almost suggest deliberate dismissal simply using words that, for some special reason, are considered so emotive. Please tell me how it is wrong to suggest a reasonable comparison between a 'platoon' of 3+ sections and a 'century' of 10 sections in terms of structure - which is what I did. None of those things are 'modern' - only they are made so - they are just words.

Given the differences in the tactical methods of the Greeks and Romans, the flexibility shown in the battlefield movements of the Roman units - the likelihood that the centurions were directly involved and moved around themselves to enable it is certainly something that should be suggested (which I did). I did not say that they 'always commanded from the rear' - but that they could have been there, and elsewhere, and not a permanent fixture at the front (like the less flexible Greeks) - as well as thinking that because of the structure. Did I base that on knowledge and experience - yes - the study of tactics throughout the last 2,500 years and practical experience, learned, practiced and then taught in the field before computers and even radios! But no - dismissed without any discussion - simply because the sources don't mention it. Did I ever suggest that the centurion never fought at the front? I think not.

That standards are there for the General to see - yes they are. They can indicate to him the whereabouts of his units and what they are doing - above the dust churned up by feet. He knows that's what the standards indicate that to him because he has imbued with honour, reinforced and trained the men to stay with their standards. A brief review of 'Root Cause Analysis' may help. Do you read that in the histories - no (well, yes, certainly alluded to in Caesar's Commentaries). Why would you want to - so it wasn't written. And thus dismissed.

Lots of detail of 'platoon sergeants' in the Napoleonic period - very like how I see the role of the optio - so suggested as a likely comparison. Claimed as 'proof' - certainly not.

'Management' - 'the checking that what was supposed to have been done has been'. The word is shorter - it was used accurately. Dismissed because it's a modern word in English - the tool of most internet communication', but perhaps not here.

'Propaganda' - 'Imbuing and encouraging a martial tradition based upon heroic examples, to create and foster a mindset that stands in the face of adversity' I used 10 letters instead - I'm sorry! It was an accurate use of the word - don't read into a word what isn't there.

I do not expect or ask for responses. I do not denigrate or dismiss the knowledge shown by people on the forum, in many cases I stand amazed at the ability to recall. I ask only that you stop dismissing others (it's not only me - I'm just more resilient than some) simply because they question the accepted and extolled version of history based only on a strict adherence to only what was written about. Some of us read the same and want to understand 'why' - not just ''what' happened to be written.