Greek and Roman war treatises

[eugene]

Why did the majority of the authors of ancient war treatises dedicated to warfare
(Onasander and Vegetius are the brightest examples) have tendency to wrote their works by ignoring the context and pecularity of each epoch - they wrote about some ideal army, ideal commander almost without any concrete historical concretisation and specification.

[M. Caecilius]

Vegetius wrote about an "ideal army" because he is not a historian, he is trying to convince his readers about how to create an army which could get Rome out of the crisis of his own day. He is not interested in providing an in-depth analysis of Roman military history, not as we would understand it today, but in trying to explain how the methods of the ancients could be used to improve the Roman army, currently far removed from the (idealised) glory days.

History was also viewed differently. Despite the ideal that history must be accurate, without embellishment, without fawning and anger, despite valiant attempts by people like Polybius, who did some actual research, much of Roman history is an elaborate stylistic and rhetorical exercise, with probability counting as much as accuracy and speeches often written to reflect what would have been said, according to the author. Most historians were hobbyists, trained as lawyers, politicians and rhetoricians and thus experienced in both interpretation and embellishment of their facts. They also tended to ignore the efforts of the antiquarians, who reflected on weird customs and words and their origin (again trusting too much in their own faculty of reason, and too little in what we would now consider historical method).

So in essence, they ignored concrete historical methods because their did not really exist, and because their aims were rather different.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I guess you could compare Vegetius to many modern military leaders and commanders, who have
proposed solutions to problems faced by a military organisation, to attempt to stop the decay.
Guderian, Rommel, (why can I only think of German examples?) to name a couple?
I wonder how many more of these ancient proposals are gone forever?

[Epictetus]

For a different thought: I've wondered about how the ancients viewed the very concept of time. For instance, many in the West today tend to view it as linear - a lot of progress, a setback, a lot of progress - so that one step leads to the next. Other cultures might view time as more cyclical, with the same patterns appearing again and again.

I've had the impression that Romans almost viewed time as static: what was morally acceptable in the time of Romulus, for instance, was morally acceptable in the time of Marcus Aurelius (or so the people of the 2nd century AD thought). Likewise, an ideal army in one generation would be the ideal army in any generation. They ignored the "context and pecularity of each epoch" because they didn't see it like we do.

[Nathan Ross]

I've had the impression that Romans almost viewed time as static: what was morally acceptable in the time of Romulus, for instance, was morally acceptable in the time of Marcus Aurelius (or so the people of the 2nd century AD thought).

Actually I believe they might have viewed it in reverse - as a process of regression and degeneration rather than progress! Everything in the days of ones ancestors is therefore better than today, and the further back you go the better everything becomes, until you reach the mythical Age of Saturn when all was perfect...

That would explain why Vegetius, for one, was so keen on the 'antique legion', and necessarily views it as superior to anything existing in his own day - it was old, so it must be better!

This way of looking at the world, I think, was accepted, at least in elite cultural circles, until the rise of Christianity popularised a different way of looking at things, and the modern idea of progress towards a perfected future state...

[eugene]

Are there any modern researches (besides Campbell s "How to be a general") dedicated to the
conceptual and methodological analysis of encient treatises on warfare?

[Quintius Clavus]

Try this book, Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts - the link is to a review:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2006/2006-02-14.html

I have read bits and pieces of the book, but I think it may address some of your questions with respect to how the ancients viewed things with respect to military treatises, etc.

I am going to try to get it via interlibrary loan.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I picked it up some years ago, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
It had excellent reviews at the time.

[M. Caecilius]

Actually I believe they might have viewed it in reverse - as a process of regression and degeneration rather than progress! Everything in the days of ones ancestors is therefore better than today, and the further back you go the better everything becomes, until you reach the mythical Age of Saturn when all was perfect...

But of course Augustus would bring back the Golden Age of Saturn!

I get the feeling that for the Romans of imperial times, things went up from the expulsion of Tarqinius Superbus to the Gracchi, then went downhill until Augustus could save the situation. After that, you'd have to forget the embarrassments most emperors were until the age of Trajan. Vegetius, after all, does not try to go back to the hoplite army which disappeared (or may have disappeared) at the Allia. Naturally, this is largely the view of Augustus and his circle, but mal de siecle is evident in Cicero and company too.

The ages enumerated by e.g. Ovid would definitely suggest a linear time, and largely a regression. I wonder whether the Secular Games mark a watershed between one saeculum and the next, or whether there are elements of renewal?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That would be an over generalisation wouldn't it?
There were many Romans who moved to improve thing in their own time, in their own way, by progress...
The looking back to better times is a natural thing in human psychology when times are bad.

[Lyceum]

That would be an over generalisation wouldn't it?
There were many Romans who moved to improve thing in their own time, in their own way, by progress...
The looking back to better times is a natural thing in human psychology when times are bad.

This, there almost certainly was a conception of progression. Gaius is right here. Overall the trick is, you know, to learn some of the specific tropes the Romans used when dealing with their literature. Otherwise its like....you're watching the tv show of a completely different civilisation with genres you have no idea how they function.

[M. Caecilius]

That would be an over generalisation wouldn't it?
There were many Romans who moved to improve thing in their own time, in their own way, by progress...

How exactly does this contradict what I said? :?: Namely, that the downfall of good practice towards the end of the Republic is largely Augustan propaganda (and Ovid certainly was part writing propaganda with the Metamorphoses), so Augustus could be shown as the saviour, and that not every period in the past was harkened back to as a golden age (I mentioned the Allia, other examples could be adduced), but that the Romans saw ups and downs. So again, how is what I wrote contradicting that there was a real and perceived progression?

[D B Campbell]

Are there any modern researches dedicated to the conceptual and methodological analysis of encient treatises on warfare?

This was Kate Gilliver's PhD subject. You can see her thesis here: http://ethos.bl.uk:8080/OrderDetails.do?...hos.307850 (login required).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry Marcus, I was replying to the original question, not to your last post.
Apologies for not reading your post and keeping my own thoughts to myself.... :roll:

But perhaps this line was part of the text that helped form my response...
I guess i should't try to take part in a discussion wit out being able to give it my full attention.

The ages enumerated by e.g. Ovid would definitely suggest a linear time, and largely a regression.

[Macedon]

Regarding the Romans, I guess that you exclude the Byzantine-Roman manuals which are mostly presenting contemporary issues of warfare and tactics. It is my personal opinion that the problem here lies in the fact that apart from Vegetius' work we have no other Roman treatise... Frontinus' (like Polyaenus') I would not call a military manual although they could be viewed as such and offer paradigms from various eras.

Regarding the (non-Byzantine) Greeks, their "manuals" seem to depict their perspective of what is militarily right and I do not think that it was limited to the ideal Hellenistic phalanx. It is true that they very rarely include anything Roman, maybe because as Greeks, they were supposed to praise and present their own system, but Arrian does include info about the contemporary Roman systems in both his Tactica and his Ektaxis kat' Alanon. Apart from that, Xenophon, also has written very precise treatises (On Horsemanship, The Cavalry General) for the Athenians of the 5th century and, maybe it is just me, but his Anabasis reads like a manual treatise regarding the various issues that crop up while marching in hostile territory (each action is using the "lessons" learned in the previous ones with new, practical and step by step variables arising, they certainly are not randomly placed...) rather than a simple war-story. Hellenistic manuals that have not survived are also supposed to present rather contemporary phalanx issues. And of course, Onasander (added that after Duncan's comments below) also writes advice for the contemporary general (of the Roman army) and although he writes all too little about the heavy infantry formation, he does write about the usage of light infantry.