How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[diegis]

And to turn a bit more gas over the fire :-)

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1293

<< If technical advances modified Vegetius’ tactical application and the availability of other ancient military texts now eliminated his uniqueness, he continued to be read as a vital part of the early modern military ‘cult of antiquity’, which the Chevalier de Folard’s Histoire de Polybe (1727-30) and other works perpetuated in fomenting the column vs. line debate on infantry deployment.
..........................................
Even Napoleon read Vegetius. In fact, the legacy extends into the 19th century. Antoine Henri de Jomini’s Prècis de l’art de la guerre (1838), the 19th–century’s chief theoretical work on war until Clausewitz’s Vom Kriege gained notoriety, betrays Vegetian influence in its conception and organization, and also features Jomini’s 12 orders of battle, the progeny of Vegetius’ seven.(9)>>

Another interesting Roman book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Rebus_Bellicis
Thats an interesting image there with that "mobile armored field artilery"

And a BBC documentary (I think what they said there is valuable for any corner of the empire)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Romans_Did_for_Us

So I think their influence is still significant in our society and even if we're different in many ways we are still similar in quite few others

[Mark Hygate]

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....

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.

[Bryan]

Deleted for unnecessary personal attacks. My apologies to Mark and the forum in general.

[Mark Hygate]

.........................
Let me provide another source:
"Each company is a platoon"
Sir David Dundas, The Principles of Military Movements, 1788, which became the manual for British infantry drill................

I cannot easily find that quote - but I can find this quote from the same source:

"Each company or division forms 2 platoons" - p57 (just after the section break)

I'd also note that it's difficult to perform 'platoon fire' if you don't have any - let alone it seems sensible to query the drawing detail of platoon fire given that intermediate platoon details could make a lot more possible sense. And I note that it seems I'm not allowed to provide a additional source in support of what I understood to be the case.......

As you interestingly pointed out, Polybius doesn't mention centuries, only centurions within maniples. So, you are similarly arguing that century's didn't exist?

As to the rest of your personal attack - I can be wrong, happily wrong - it's part of learning. But taking a point of view is not wrong, or right, it's just a point of view and I am entitled, indeed I should be expected to, to defend it. Or are you suggesting that you are right and there is no discussion? That's the worst form of intolerance.

Anachronism:
"In historical writing, the most common type of anachronism is the adoption of the political, social or cultural concerns and assumptions of one era to interpret or evaluate the events and actions of another."

Certainly, from my seemingly so limited (such I believe I should infer), point of view - I haven't touched upon 'political', 'social' or 'cultural' concerns or assumptions once ever in my querying of certain beliefs expressed in the basic tactical and drill movements likely on the battlefield - they've only come up in side discussions.

Universal education over the last century has changed the dynamic for most 'soldiers', but I think you'll find that thinking of soldiers (and farmer militia) as essentially the same type of 'man' for the entire period of military history up until the end of the 19th century is far more likely than any imagined 'difference(s)'. Absolutely when talking about basic military movements and drills.

As to what promoted this in the first place - I suggested (and yes, of course I tried to justify that suggestion) that a centurion might not have spent all his time in the front rank. I 'suggested' a possibility - and get vilified for it? Is that acceptable here?

I don't think any view expressed here should be treated so. Is it any wonder I might feel defensive about that. If, however, I have sometimes replied in a way that may seem intemperate, then I certainly apologize for that. But I have a right to defend against an attack.

[Vindex]

MODERATOR GREEN

May I respectfully request that the personal sniping stops immediately or I will lock the thread.

I will consult with the other Moderators on action to be taken as I have warned some of the thread participants before on this matter.

GO AND READ THE POSTING RULES

There's a handy link at the end of my post...

[Renatus]

May I respectfully request that the personal sniping stops immediately or I will lock the thread.

Couldn't you lock it anyway? I'm heartily sick of it and it's doing nothing for my blood-pressure.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I think this thread has become so circular its in danger of being an 'Ozalem Bird'!

Its a pointless topic in that unless we could actually sit down and talk with someone who lived during the timeframe of the Roman Empire and actually judge for ourselves then how are we really going to know?

[Renatus]

I think this thread has become so circular its in danger of being an 'Ozalem Bird'!

Who is going to be the first to say that, as we speak of the Ozalem Bird, the Romans must have done so too?

[Urselius]

I think this thread has become so circular its in danger of being an 'Ozalem Bird'!

Who is going to be the first to say that, as we speak of the Ozalem Bird, the Romans must have done so too?

I think that is the quickest circular argument on record - ask a question and answer it in the same sentence. mile:

Ozalem Bird to Worm Ouroboros, very neatly done.

[Mark Hygate]

I would therefore wish to ask only two things:

- That the thread not be locked, but referred to directly if the subject comes up once more - so that all the negativity can be kept in one place

- That any interested party that comes to the forum is allowed, if not positively encouraged, to suggest any counter-veiling view to that which may be currently accepted/popular based upon reasonably sound principles or even, sometimes best of all, experience.

This is a military forum about the Roman Army. Battlefield Tactical and Drill issues, even 'Grand Tactical/Operation' factors such as the siting and details of marching and camping are not, and my opinion only, affected by the differences in Political, Social or Cultural factors that affected the Romans - which do affect, again my opinion, any Strategic and Geo-Political actions.

I would certainly like to note that I do not think I have won any argument - quite the contrary. I am sad that I felt it necessary to raise in the first place. Simply leave the thread for anyone else who wants to read it and leave it there.

I do find it odd that posts can be so easily deleted - everyone is entitled to their view.

[Vindex]

MODERATOR GREEN

Locking it is not the same as deleting.

If the arguments were kept on the subject matter and not allowed to contravene the forum rules I would not be posting here as Moderator.