01-13-2012, 07:34 PM
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.
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.
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii
