New Book on Roman Swords

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I am hoping my copy will be arriving today sometime! mile:

Has it?

Sorry Robert, yes, it did! mile:

[Alexand96]

Although I am sure that I am far less informed than many of you esteemed gentleman here (for instance, I have never had the opportunity to read Miks), my impression of the book was that it is a quick, enjoyable read with lots of good information about the Roman army, with some good bits and pieces about their swords thrown in.

However, even with what I consider my limited expertise, there are some points/statements that the author makes that I do not necessarily agree with.

For one, the author states that the Roman legionary almost ubiquitously wore the color brown. As well, James also states that it is likely that the emperors wore such dull colors, and adopted other styles from the legions, in order to commiserate and identify with them, in hopes that this gesture would engender their support. I will not even attempt to open up that Pandora's Box in this thread, but that is a highly contested assertion, and I personally doubt any such uniformity amongst the legions, or such piety amongst many of the emperors (few exceptions noted).

I thought that James' philosophizing on the violence and cruelty of the Roman military was interesting, but once again, I do not necessarily agree. Basically, it seems to me that he sees the Roman military/empire in a rather modern-imperialist light, that I do not believe lends itself to the realities of life in the ancient world. Either I am one of the naive Roman apologists he speaks of in the book, who he believes would counter his objections to violence and conquest with "can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs," as he says, or he is judging relevant levels of violence and quality of life in the ancient world without any real evidence for how corrupt, cruel, and violent other peoples of the era could be.

Overall I believe this is a really good read, and if you can spare the $25 or so, I'd recommend it - particularly if you're rather new to the study of the Roman military or swords, in general.

[Americus]

FWIW, I've read about 1/3 of it so far. I've found it to be very informative and interesting. I'm enjoying reading it.

[Q Rutilius]

I have a gift card for Barnes&Noble. I googled, and apparently they had this book. But, any link took me to "nook" - what ever the hell that is- and, I kid you not- Barbie ( the doll). So......the moral of this story is...........buy this book from somebody else! I certainly will!

[Graham Sumner]

"For one, the author states that the Roman legionary almost ubiquitously wore the color brown. As well, James also states that it is likely that the emperors wore such dull colors, and adopted other styles from the legions, in order to commiserate and identify with them, in hopes that this gesture would engender their support. I will not even attempt to open up that Pandora's Box in this thread, but that is a highly contested assertion, and I personally doubt any such uniformity amongst the legions, or such piety amongst many of the emperors (few exceptions noted)."

Hi Alexander

Does Simon James supply any further details to support this and/or any references? Naturally out of curiosity I have some interest in this topic and would like to know how he has arrived at this conclusion.

If there is quite a lengthy discussion with sources in the book I will certainly add it to my shopping list.

Graham.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

"[i] Does Simon James supply any further details to support this and/or any references? Naturally out of curiosity I have some interest in this topic and would like to know how he has arrived at this conclusion.

If there is quite a lengthy discussion with sources in the book I will certainly add it to my shopping list.

Graham.

As I said Graham, the box raises many issues open to discussion... :wink:

[Alexand96]

Does Simon James supply any further details to support this and/or any references? Naturally out of curiosity I have some interest in this topic and would like to know how he has arrived at this conclusion.

Graham, that was the frustrating bit. I very much share your interest in this subject (visualizing the Romans/their world), and own and enjoy more than one of your works. I did not check into his references listed in the back of the book, to be honest, but if memory serves correct he more or less stated this as if it was an accepted fact. When I have time, hopefully this evening or soon thereafter, I'll check into it. I do specifically remember him stating that emperors would be keen to dress in contemporary military fashions, which he stated were intentionally muted to reflect traditional Roman militaristic piety, so as to identify directly with the legions. I am not trying to distort or misrepresent his views in any way, but I'm almost certain that he had an exact statement such as "The sagum/paenula was traditionally always brown." I think this statement is quite contemptible for various reasons.

[Longovicium]

I was bought this as a Xmas present by my partner (how lucky am I?) and am quite a way through it at the moment so will give some early impressions. Just to contextualise them, my main interest has always been 3rd/4th century Rome so my overall knowledge is thin at best for the periods outside this.

What I found most interesting was the way in which Simon James is able to marry the particulars of the military development to the wider social issues of the evolving Roman state. He is able to demonstrate how these social aspects - Rome's attitude to her allies and enemies, her ambivalent attitude to war itself and the 'wolves' bred within her to fight in those wars, the use and deployment of the armed forces - shape and change both the structure of the legions and the auxilaries and also the weapons and kit they used. In many ways, James is able to chart these changing social pressures (the move from a city oligarchy allying itself to the wider Italian cities, the move to a Republic formally incorporating allied states into its own 'Latin' body-politic, and the eventual rise of the Prinicpate and then Imperium) through the detailed analyses of swords in particular.

For James, the sword becomes not just a specific weapon which can be charted and illustrated in detail (the gladius in its various forms, the spatha also, etc.) but also a symbol for the wider social issues - in particular that janus-like relationship Rome has with the soldier himself. At this level, the book poses the ambivalence hidden deep in the heart of Rome: namely, that she values virtu and disciplina yet at the same time does so to keep in check her own wolves who will just as easily turn on her as keep the barbarians at bay. The sword in this book is very much a Damoclean symbol (specifically mentioned early on) - and the evolution of the sword both as a symbol and an artifact is balanced very well so far.

For example, he argues that the move from one style of gladius to another which professed a diamond point more suited to facing armoured opponents was a direct result of civil war experiences and the need for legionaries to face effectively other legionaries, and so on. He also provides a convincing argument for the development of the Roman fortified bases which allowed these buldings to provide supply centres for the legionaries and auxilaries while also being structured to control them on a deeper social level. For Rome the sword is a two-edged weapon always able to turn against the hand which weilds it.

I am now reaching the period where the short gladius and the rectangular scutum is slowly being replaced by the longer pattern-weilded spatha and the dished oval scutum and to be honest it is the best introduction to why that change occured that I have read to date.

However, having written the above, I have do have criticisms: James has a tendency to reduce complex particular Roman relationships (the Senate to the people, etc., the city populace to the rural farmers, and so on) down into almost Sixth-form level descriptions. I despaired of reading the title 'Warlord' over and again to describe Caesar or Pompey, for example, as if these specific moments in a social history could be reduced to such simple phrases. As a result the early sections of the book seem almost naive - or more importantly 'distanced' from the subject matter, as if James is distantly eyeing everything from an impersonal level. This results in a cool approach that places the social and military history of Rome at arms' length. While this is a positive approach in that it allows the reader to jetison certain glamorous or jingoistic notions of the Roman Army (something James is keen to disavow as a anachronistic reflex on our part), it also leaves the reader in a cold objective relationship to Roman history that smacks of a faintly disapproving Socialist tone. Now that may say more about my own reading habits than it does about the book itself - however I do think the term 'Warlord' while good at jerking the reader away from identifying with Caesar or Octavian, for example, remains simplistic.

That said, this book has opened my eyes to how the Roman military developed as a response to and even reaction against the evolving social state - and by focusing on the sword in both its material and symbolic aspects, James has allowed a way in to Roman history over a broad canvas that so far is detailed and well-written. It is the first book I have read which allows me to really grasp how the military changed - and was always changing - against that wider backdrop.

[Alexand96]

Graham Sumner wrote:

Does Simon James supply any further details to support this and/or any references?

Alright, finally got around to this – it’s been a fun week. :wink:
So, to make absolutely certain that I do James no injustice in misrepresenting his views, let me quote him directly. This is from a passage of his about the changes in military dress during Antonine revolution:

“This was, though, a typically Roman revolution; important details of dress clearly reflect continuities in expressing soldierly masculinity. Milites still regarded themselves as proud Roman males with values and traditions to uphold. Trousers were drab, usually greyish, while cloaks were normally yellow-brownish, suitably subdued and practical colours for men whose ideology emphasized traditional Roman plainness and the sweat, dust an toil of service, contrasting appropriately with the gaudy colours and elaboration of the dress of barbarians and women. However, officers’ cloaks, and all ranks’ tunics (at least for so-called ‘camp dress’), were white with purple details (plate v). This expressed the status of soldiers as free and privileged males, for purple-detailed white tunics were the dark business suit and necktie of the era, worn by all respectable Italians, Greeks, Jews and others.” (pg. 190)

The plate that he refers to is the so-called ‘church parade’ wall painting of cohors xx Palmyrenorum at Dura-Europos. Source listed for the color photograph is “F. Cumont 1923.” I have found it online here - http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeo...ry-at-dura

In another passage about the rise of Republican Rome, James states “Reportedly, Roman kit was also deliberately less gorgeous than that of peoples like the Samnites, who invested heavily in showy armour; certainly, later milites regarded plainness in dress, linked to their willingness to toil and sweat for their country on dusty roads and digging entrenchments, as things distinguishing Roman virtus from gaudy and effeminate foreign equipment.” (pg. 47)No specific reference listed.

Just as a side note, now having gone back and looked for these passages, they seem to bother me less than when I first read them. The language he uses is not as definite as I remembered, and I think that many would agree with the gist of what he is saying about Roman military dress. However, I still believe that gaudy, ‘effeminate’ colors and displays of wealth would have been evident in the Roman military, just as they were in all ancient fighting forces. Perhaps more subdued, but still there.

Still definitely recommend this as a great read with lots of well-founded opinions to contemplate.

[Antoninus05]

I bought this book while on location in Atlanta, GA around Christmas time. Finally got to "crack the cover" of it two days ago. I do think using the sword as the main "thrust" into other areas is quite good. I was happy to see such a book for sale at Barnes and Nobles. I'm looking forward to really getting a few good reading stretches in with it, but so far, I'm really enjoying it and learning a few things along the way. Mike