It is basically a nature versus nurture debate. Biologically we are the same as the Romans, our motivations and innate behaviour patterns and responses to fundamental stimuli are identical. Unexpectedly confronted by a bear, both a Roman and Modern would run and require a change of underwear. Where we differ is in conditioned responses and in social, religious and cultural outlook as Roman and Modern society differ.
Quote:. Unexpectedly confronted by a bear, both a Roman and Modern would run and require a change of underwear.
You think someone with the name of Pompey Magnus or Bigus Dikus would have run from a bear? Har! Romans didn't run from bears, the bears ran from the Romans.
Quote: You think someone with the name of Pompey Magnus or Bigus Dikus would have run from a bear? Har! Romans didn't run from bears, the bears ran from the Romans.
That shows that Roman bears are different from modern bears - or am I drifting off topic?
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Quote:It is basically a nature versus nurture debate. Biologically we are the same as the Romans, our motivations and innate behaviour patterns and responses to fundamental stimuli are identical. Unexpectedly confronted by a bear, both a Roman and Modern would run and require a change of underwear. Where we differ is in conditioned responses and in social, religious and cultural outlook as Roman and Modern society differ.
You Europeans would run. Over here in the US I can just take my gun out and shoot the bear.
Would you face one naked with a sword and call it sporting?
Macedonians, they had to kill a boar on foot with a spear before they were allowed to eat with the men. Not many lions were left in Europe by the Iron Age.
Boars are very, very dangerous. They're aggressive and will rip you to pieces, and are a serious problem over here in the US. Not even modern compound bows will take them down quickly, and sometimes a high-caliber rifle won't either.
With some things the more they change, the more they stay the same!
Adam
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
Well, beside some people still killing boars with a spear (wow, now thats some cool and little crazy thing) there are others who fight animals in arena with a sword or lances, like in Roman times (and this is even little more crazy)
They arent naked anymore, and the animals are not bears or lions, but still
Interesting link - so that's normally 2 Sergeants (and 2 Lieutentants if they had purchased those commissions, or if, rarely, a Sergeant had been commissioned and was actually in a field company)........
Which is 1 (each) per platoon.
I know by now that you really don't like me and I'm rather sad you have had such a bad experience with officers, per se - but really? Honestly, I may not find internet communication the easiest - but I don't make things up entirely......
Interesting link - so that's normally 2 Sergeants (and 2 Lieutentants if they had purchased those commissions, or if, rarely, a Sergeant had been commissioned and was actually in a field company)........
Which is 1 (each) per platoon.
The link specifically doesn't mention platoons as a tactical unit nor platoon sergeants but you want to extrapolate that they still existed. It lists 3 sergeants, 2 corporals in a company. The position of "platoon sergeant," which you frequently compare to optio, was a later creation. As was the creation of the position of "platoon leader." It also specifically stated this in the link but I am guessing you either didn't read it or just ignored it.
"At this stage there was no platoon structure, though rifle and light companies (at least) split into four "sections" for forward patrol duties"
(at bottom of linked article)
Now the above is actually partly right and partly wrong. During the Napoleonic era, British infantry formed up in sub units of companies within a regiment/battalion but fought as platoons, which were basically identical in size as a company. A company was the actual "home" of the men, officers and other ranks, it existed on paper. But they were not equal in size to one another, since some would be more thinned out than others though casualties or desertions and the like. So a battalion would muster morning and night as companies but would be made separated and put into platoons for fighting, in a process called "equalising." Hence tactical commands such as "platoon fire," and not "company fire." Likewise, it was how a battalion was able to form a square and not end up in a trapezoid or rhombiod shaped formation. When formed into platoons, the officers and NCOs of the company would then be portioned off as needed. They were not permanent positions. IE. An officer would be identified as an officer of "such and such company" but would not be identified as a platoon leader or platoon commander of "1st platoon" or something similar. Neither would the NCOs.
Because modern British use platoons as a permanent administrative and tactical subunit of companies, and sections as a subunit of platoons, some people improperly believe the British always had them. Same applies to actual positions of authority within said units, like the position of "platoon sergeant." Those people are incorrect.
I'm sorry for going off topic, but someone keeps bringing up platoon sergeants in the Napoleonic War as a comparison to the role of optios, the first of which didn't exist and the second no one rightly knowing what their duties entailed.
I know by now that you really don't like me and I'm rather sad you have had such a bad experience with officers, [i]per se - but really? Honestly, I may not find internet communication the easiest - but I don't make things up entirely......[/i]
It saddens me that you think me posting my replies to your theories is personal. It isn't. Its a method of correcting you. As an example, when I created a topic a few years ago with some incorrect and ill-thought of and poorly research theories, I was ripped apart for it, rightly so. At the time I too got defensive and angry, taking it personal. But I learned from that thread.
Lastly, my previous experiences with officers has no bearing on you or my posts interacting with you. I don't know you. I don't even know if you actually served or not, as personal military credentials aren't something easily checked online. You've frequently used your evidently vast military experience to demonstrate your authority but I don't actually know what you have done and with whom, in what positions. In my own posts, I've specifically mentioned a few times about my past experiences with bad officers, in a way to reinforce the notion that just because someone has military experience does not mean they know what they are doing, even though some go out of their way attempting to seem competent by using an expressive and jargon filled vocabulary (not in reference to your own expressive and jargon filled posts).
As far as cultural differences go, it's important to note the vast differences within both contemporary society and within ancient Roman society. I'll happily accept the generalization that today's militaries and soldiers care less about tradition, religion, and glory than the Roman military and Roman soldiers did. Nonetheless you find some Westerners here in the twenty-first century willing to take great risks for honor or for tradition or for religious beliefs. As mentioned earlier, we've no firm way of even discerning how different circa 2014 Westerners are from circa 1 Romans, but it's enjoyable to engage in this sort of informed speculation.
As a related aside, note that much of the recent scholarship on human prehistory disputes the popular-culture notion of the cave man invoked in this thread. The debate continues to rage, of course, and there's even less evidence to go on than with Roman history.
Interesting link - so that's normally 2 Sergeants (and 2 Lieutentants if they had purchased those commissions, or if, rarely, a Sergeant had been commissioned and was actually in a field company)........
Which is 1 (each) per platoon.
The link specifically doesn't mention platoons as a tactical unit nor platoon sergeants but you want to extrapolate that they still existed. It lists 3 sergeants, 2 corporals in a company. The position of "platoon sergeant," which you frequently compare to optio, was a later creation. As was the creation of the position of "platoon leader." It also specifically stated this in the link but I am guessing you either didn't read it or just ignored it.
"At this stage there was no platoon structure, though rifle and light companies (at least) split into four "sections" for forward patrol duties"
(at bottom of linked article)
Now the above is actually partly right and partly wrong. During the Napoleonic era, British infantry formed up in sub units of companies within a regiment/battalion but fought as platoons, which were basically identical in size as a company. .................
Bryan - I may often be too sure of some of my views - but deliberate mis-reading by you to support a weak case? How possibly can you mis-read "Sergeant - 2 per company and Corporals 3 per company" (from the link, which I have read)?
And an internet article states that there were no platoons (I guess the Prussian army (larger companies in general) didn't have 4 'zugs' either..... But then you further link another article/source that talks about platoons - but then completely confuses itself - quite possibly because the author doesn't seem to have any idea what he's talking about!
Let's see if I can quote too (from a source that's not me or simply my memory)......................:
".....The company was broken down into either two or four elements. In the British, French and Russian armies, two platoons made up a company, while in the Austrian, Prussian and other Germanic armies, the company consisted of four Zugs." {Napoloeonic Armies by Ray Johnson, Arms & Armour Press, 1984 - sat on my bookshelf}
So, we have a 'company' that is divided into two 'platoons'; who fight (generally) side-by-side (with one on the right and one on the left, in a line) and are thus able to 'fire by platoons' when necessary; normally march one behind each other; and form in square with one in front who kneel after firing to present an unbroken hedge of bayonets, with the other behind still able to load and fire; each with their own 'officer' structure.
And therefore there is shock and disgust when I dare to compare a 'maniple' broken down into two 'centuries', each with it's own structure, who fight side-by-side with one on the right and one on the left; where one is identified as 'prior' and one as 'posterior'........
Honestly - I simply don't get it. When you then realize that battlefield tactical needs didn't much change for a 5,000 year period (until the advent of the rifled bullet, backed up by by mechanization and the ability for long range accurate artillery fire, forced dispersion) - and those seem to be the main areas of contention between us - then it's really no surprise that there are parallels - real ones.
But no - the 'Romans were different' - so let's see why I remain confused.......
mile:
![[Image: article-2519899-19DECBE000000578-479_634x473.jpg]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/07/article-2519899-19DECBE000000578-479_634x473.jpg)
![[Image: 0,,1090722_4,00.jpg]](http://www.dw.de/image/0,,1090722_4,00.jpg)
![[Image: Picador_1.jpg]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Picador_1.jpg)
