07-09-2014, 05:47 PM
Bryan (as only my chief protagonist it seems, but anyone who is even only vaguely interested),
Well, I shall happily continue to 'tilt at windmills' if necessary, if for no other reason than to raise a little doubt in all the apparent certainty. I am particularly sad if some modern 'soldiers' view of 'officers' is bad (and if there are examples like we may have seen in 'Heartbreak Ridge' (sic), then we might all sympathise), but I also accept that some Americans (in this case, but they are not alone) have a certain view of Britain and the British Army, but that is a part of their history and culture. To denigrate on that basis belittles their own intelligence, however. 'Officers' are not 'trained' to be leaders. Inherent leadership skills can be developed and possibly enhanced through training and experience, but there has to be something there in the first place.
It is perhaps a blinkered version of the 'scholarly' viewpoint , but there seems to be an approach taken here that I have seen before(and not just here) that builds an 'ivory tower' upon very limited and sketchy information. That edifice is continually built upon by others who only add together previous work (whilst referencing to show that they have) and shape the result slightly differently to say the same things in perhaps a slightly different way. In the main, however, they take no risk, don't go out on a limb and base everything on a strict reliance on what they can read (and therefore show to others as 'proof' - and that's if they even read the original) - they publish and can join the ranks.
The archaeological evidence that we find is probably best of all, but it tends to show tiny glimpses of the past and, as they will confirm, context is everything.
But it's the limited written evidence that is the main issue - for it is so limited. Calling it 'evidence' is strong, for it is certainly not 'proof', but at best 'hearsay'. Some has survived the centuries; the majority that has survived has done so only because it was firstly deemed relevant by archivists and then copied by monks - and only that was deemed acceptable has been allowed to exist, by a church that was notoriously conservative at the time (and in the centuries following).
Even if we can vainly hope that it has survived relatively unscathed a lot of the prose is still just a 'story', it's only that it talks about things of a bygone age that it is history, but it remains just words on a page. That story was written by people who wanted to be read - and they made it interesting otherwise it would not be read - and they concentrated on the good bits, often the salacious bits. It is indeed possible that some of that information is wrong or made up; reasonably possible that some of it has been changed, edited or even just copied incorrectly; and it is highly probable, if not a likely certainty that what we read is only a part of the entire story.
This forum is dedicated to the Roman Military - a military that would have needed an equally comprehensive bureaucracy behind it ; but there is precious little, if any, of that shown in the classic histories (although it's those records they must have accessed to produce some of the detail). In fact, and especially given the thread this last week on Human Waste, the defence often cited by the strict scholarly approach is that if it was not written about, then it never happened! The statement, 'the Romans were different and you have no comprehension' based upon some of the points raised would imply that they were that different - for they must not have produced said waste - for it's not mentioned..... Silly isn't it. For now and then archaeology shows us some of it - latrines in forts and scraps of lists, more lists and yet more lists - lists that are all produced as part of 'command and control and logistics'. It had to happen.
So, we have a tall edifice of published research based upon very sketchy hearsay evidence, but defended by an impenetrable wall that 'mere mortals' cannot possible understand.
The Romans were just men - men that are an essential part of the Western historical background that the vast majority of us share. Our militaries are based upon the Greek and particularly Roman constructs, started in the Middle East with the first City States and Farmers and exported wherever Europeans have touched. It is also no surprise at all that Western 'methods' don't work with Hill Tribes and Nomads, for they don't have anything like that background. But take a baby from that environment and have them grow up in the West and they will behave just the same as most of us do.
I am here because I have great interest, I am here to learn and, if I possibly am able to, to contribute as well; others may also have something to contribute based upon their own knowledge that may possibly make people think. I am often astounded by the knowledge (and particularly the ability to show off references as part of their contributions) of many, but am certainly frustrated by the strict 'evidence' approach and certainly the 'modern knowledge and experience is of no value' - to both of which I say 'poppycock, balderdash and look closely, for the Imperator may have no clothes'! I ask only that a pause is sometimes taken as you may start to realise the vast amount of information on a subject under discussion that was not recorded - because it's not very exciting.
You don't have to easily accept and I know how difficult it can be to look down from that ivory tower surrounded by its nice big wall - but do go back and re-look at the foundations, for they are very sandy.
But given it's some of the oldest actual history of our period that we have available - a quote from dear old Polybius:
(XII.25g) "...it is impossible for someone who lacks military experience to write well about warfare,..... Nothing written by authors who rely on mere book-learning has the clarity that comes from personal experience, and so nothing is gained by reading their work."
I don't agree entirely, for a hope of complete understanding can come from many viewpoints, but I think the point is well made.
Well, I shall happily continue to 'tilt at windmills' if necessary, if for no other reason than to raise a little doubt in all the apparent certainty. I am particularly sad if some modern 'soldiers' view of 'officers' is bad (and if there are examples like we may have seen in 'Heartbreak Ridge' (sic), then we might all sympathise), but I also accept that some Americans (in this case, but they are not alone) have a certain view of Britain and the British Army, but that is a part of their history and culture. To denigrate on that basis belittles their own intelligence, however. 'Officers' are not 'trained' to be leaders. Inherent leadership skills can be developed and possibly enhanced through training and experience, but there has to be something there in the first place.
It is perhaps a blinkered version of the 'scholarly' viewpoint , but there seems to be an approach taken here that I have seen before(and not just here) that builds an 'ivory tower' upon very limited and sketchy information. That edifice is continually built upon by others who only add together previous work (whilst referencing to show that they have) and shape the result slightly differently to say the same things in perhaps a slightly different way. In the main, however, they take no risk, don't go out on a limb and base everything on a strict reliance on what they can read (and therefore show to others as 'proof' - and that's if they even read the original) - they publish and can join the ranks.
The archaeological evidence that we find is probably best of all, but it tends to show tiny glimpses of the past and, as they will confirm, context is everything.
But it's the limited written evidence that is the main issue - for it is so limited. Calling it 'evidence' is strong, for it is certainly not 'proof', but at best 'hearsay'. Some has survived the centuries; the majority that has survived has done so only because it was firstly deemed relevant by archivists and then copied by monks - and only that was deemed acceptable has been allowed to exist, by a church that was notoriously conservative at the time (and in the centuries following).
Even if we can vainly hope that it has survived relatively unscathed a lot of the prose is still just a 'story', it's only that it talks about things of a bygone age that it is history, but it remains just words on a page. That story was written by people who wanted to be read - and they made it interesting otherwise it would not be read - and they concentrated on the good bits, often the salacious bits. It is indeed possible that some of that information is wrong or made up; reasonably possible that some of it has been changed, edited or even just copied incorrectly; and it is highly probable, if not a likely certainty that what we read is only a part of the entire story.
This forum is dedicated to the Roman Military - a military that would have needed an equally comprehensive bureaucracy behind it ; but there is precious little, if any, of that shown in the classic histories (although it's those records they must have accessed to produce some of the detail). In fact, and especially given the thread this last week on Human Waste, the defence often cited by the strict scholarly approach is that if it was not written about, then it never happened! The statement, 'the Romans were different and you have no comprehension' based upon some of the points raised would imply that they were that different - for they must not have produced said waste - for it's not mentioned..... Silly isn't it. For now and then archaeology shows us some of it - latrines in forts and scraps of lists, more lists and yet more lists - lists that are all produced as part of 'command and control and logistics'. It had to happen.
So, we have a tall edifice of published research based upon very sketchy hearsay evidence, but defended by an impenetrable wall that 'mere mortals' cannot possible understand.
The Romans were just men - men that are an essential part of the Western historical background that the vast majority of us share. Our militaries are based upon the Greek and particularly Roman constructs, started in the Middle East with the first City States and Farmers and exported wherever Europeans have touched. It is also no surprise at all that Western 'methods' don't work with Hill Tribes and Nomads, for they don't have anything like that background. But take a baby from that environment and have them grow up in the West and they will behave just the same as most of us do.
I am here because I have great interest, I am here to learn and, if I possibly am able to, to contribute as well; others may also have something to contribute based upon their own knowledge that may possibly make people think. I am often astounded by the knowledge (and particularly the ability to show off references as part of their contributions) of many, but am certainly frustrated by the strict 'evidence' approach and certainly the 'modern knowledge and experience is of no value' - to both of which I say 'poppycock, balderdash and look closely, for the Imperator may have no clothes'! I ask only that a pause is sometimes taken as you may start to realise the vast amount of information on a subject under discussion that was not recorded - because it's not very exciting.
You don't have to easily accept and I know how difficult it can be to look down from that ivory tower surrounded by its nice big wall - but do go back and re-look at the foundations, for they are very sandy.
But given it's some of the oldest actual history of our period that we have available - a quote from dear old Polybius:
(XII.25g) "...it is impossible for someone who lacks military experience to write well about warfare,..... Nothing written by authors who rely on mere book-learning has the clarity that comes from personal experience, and so nothing is gained by reading their work."
I don't agree entirely, for a hope of complete understanding can come from many viewpoints, but I think the point is well made.
