Greek and Roman war treatises

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi George,

I think that, while we’re trying here to define people who lived about 2000 years ago, the problem is that we struggle to overcome our modern views while we have but a weak grasp on the ancient view on this theme of identity. On the one hand we would like to know how this and that individual looked at himself – which in only a very small cases we really know because they tell us so – while on the other hand we work better with easy definitions – which are less accurate because they, by nature, generalize.

In this case I see a conflict between your view, which if I’m correct looks more at the individual, and my view, which looks more at the group as seen from a modern perspective. So while you see his Greek-ness (rightly so) I see him as a member of a Roman empire.

We refer to inhabitants of Britain as Romano-Britons from the point of establishing Britain as a Roman province, in the same sense as we refer to inhabitants of Roman Gaul as Gallo-Romans. We never question whether they saw themselves as Roman or when they began doing so. Perhaps we should refer to Arrian in a similar way, instead of looking for a personal identity?

The second part of his life he spent in Athens, where he also held a high office as an archon, where he adopted the name of his "hero" Xenophon (as he had done with his Roman part of his name before) and where he wrote his works in question partly in imitation of the older Greek authors like Xenophon and Herodot

I see your point. No doubt that he was very aware of his past and Greek literary tradition. But the later emperor Julian also lived most of his life in Athens, studies philosophy until his family (Constantius II) decided he was to become a Caesar in the West. Julian admired Greek tradition (religion and literature) up to a point where he defied Roman (Christian) society. Yet I don’t think that anyone, by that definition, would refer to Julian as ‘Greek’.

I have to add that we all have to keep in mind that we are in the late 1st - early 2nd century AD. There is no broad Roman identity sense yet in the east where Arrian has lived and served the Roman Empire.

Is that a fact? After centuries of Roman occupation, can you say that these people still did not think of themselves as Romans in the broad sense? I find that questionable. Of course Romans always had other identities besides ‘Roman’ (region, town, family), but although I’m not sure how long it would take to reach a sense of belonging to a ‘Roman’ society, I think 300 years or more is a bit long.

Of course, later on, when the Roman identity is accepted by the non-Latins over their older regional identities, things are different.

So when did it finally ‘sink in’ do you think?

I think that any Roman influence is secondary in Arrian's work

I don’t know everything Arrian wrote, nor how ‘Greek’ or ‘Roman’ his style of writing is, but as military treatises go, I see Arrian writing (in Greek) about a Roman army, fighting within a set of Roman military tradition.

So would you be comfortable with a statement such as "Roman historians like Arrian state that... while Greeks like Diodorus...." or "Roman scholars, among whom Arrian and Diodorus..."

Absolutely.

[D B Campbell]

Where does Arrian write "emeis oi romaioi"?

Lucian says Arrian was "among the leading men of Rome" (ἀνὴρ Ῥωμαίων ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις). Not Greece.

But we digress. You were drawing a distinction between "Roman sources" and "Greek sources". I wondered why you had drawn such a distinction? I assumed (wrongly, it seems) that you meant "Latin texts" and "Greek texts". I am bemused by your classification of the works of Arrian and Onasander as "Greek" (as opposed to "Roman"), simply because they wrote in Greek, -- I'm bemused, because their subject matter was the Roman army, and their works were for consumption by Romans. How does Vegetius differ from this?

[Macedon]

Hi George,

I think that, while we’re trying here to define people who lived about 2000 years ago, the problem is that we struggle to overcome our modern views while we have but a weak grasp on the ancient view on this theme of identity. On the one hand we would like to know how this and that individual looked at himself – which in only a very small cases we really know because they tell us so – while on the other hand we work better with easy definitions – which are less accurate because they, by nature, generalize.

In this case I see a conflict between your view, which if I’m correct looks more at the individual, and my view, which looks more at the group as seen from a modern perspective. So while you see his Greek-ness (rightly so) I see him as a member of a Roman empire.

I agree to that. I do not doubt his (or any other author's) place within the frame of the Roman Empire. The problem arises when he DO want to differentiate. Welsh and Scots are British. This would not mean that we could NOT differentiate them or that there isno reason to. And their past under the banners of England is longer than this of the Greeks as is the level of political control. I am just amazed that one could rebel at the thought of terming him a Greek, while I have read a great number of works where he was anyways called a Greek historian/author (maybe because of my own perspective I always thought they were the greater majority and maybe I am mistaken but we could look into that). Being a subject of the Roman Empire certainly did not erase one's more localized ethnicity.

We refer to inhabitants of Britain as Romano-Britons from the point of establishing Britain as a Roman province, in the same sense as we refer to inhabitants of Roman Gaul as Gallo-Romans. We never question whether they saw themselves as Roman or when they began doing so. Perhaps we should refer to Arrian in a similar way, instead of looking for a personal identity?

To this I also agree. This is also my point. Why not call them "Romans" alone? This is because we need for various reasons to make this distinction. Calling them Romano-British and Gallo-Romans perfectly well distinguishes between them and the "Romans" "proper" and allows for individual or group study whereas simply terming them "Roman" would not. And the term "Romano-" is more like an indicative of the timeframe and sometimes cultural background but we certainly would include such people in a study of "British" or "Gallic" (however broad these too might be as "ethnic" terms) personas. "Graeco-roman" is also a term that is used for such purposes.

I see your point. No doubt that he was very aware of his past and Greek literary tradition. But the later emperor Julian also lived most of his life in Athens, studies philosophy until his family (Constantius II) decided he was to become a Caesar in the West. Julian admired Greek tradition (religion and literature) up to a point where he defied Roman (Christian) society. Yet I don’t think that anyone, by that definition, would refer to Julian as ‘Greek’.

If he was born in a Greek city, had lived in this region for the greater part of his life, studied in Greece under Greeks, if everything in his life apart from his position in the Empire was pure Greek (again as far as I know from what little we have about his past)? It seems to me that the question has been diverted from whether we should properly call him "Roman" and juxtapose him to "Greek" as to whether we could call him a "Greek" at all. Do you propose that Arrian is not (or should not) in scholarly works be termed "a Greek"?

Is that a fact? After centuries of Roman occupation, can you say that these people still did not think of themselves as Romans in the broad sense? I find that questionable. Of course Romans always had other identities besides ‘Roman’ (region, town, family), but although I’m not sure how long it would take to reach a sense of belonging to a ‘Roman’ society, I think 300 years or more is a bit long.

Does the same question apply to all other conquered populations too? The Iberians were "Romans" a longer time. Plus, when do you place the point when the Greeks of Greece proper, those of Asia Minor or those of Syria, Cyrenaica, Egypt etc started even feeling Roman? This control anyways came after the final defeat of the Macedonians. They were subjugated people and enjoyed too much political and cultural freedom to easily become "Romans". This was accomplished by Christianity rather than Rome's political control.[/quote]

So when did it finally ‘sink in’ do you think?

I think it was after Christianity became prominent in the area. It was then that the "old" was deamonized and the "new" took over. Maybe 4th-6th centuries AD.[/quote]

I don’t know everything Arrian wrote, nor how ‘Greek’ or ‘Roman’ his style of writing is, but as military treatises go, I see Arrian writing (in Greek) about a Roman army, fighting within a set of Roman military tradition.

Actually he mainly discusses the Greek ideal phalanx, Greek tactics and only gives some side-information about some Roman issues. He is one of those that the OP "accused" of idolizing the Greek hellenistic phalanx. His "extaxis" has to do with a specific battle plan that of course entails a Roman army

So would you be comfortable with a statement such as "Roman historians like Arrian state that... while Greeks like Diodorus...." or "Roman scholars, among whom Arrian and Diodorus..."

Absolutely.

[/quote]

I respect that. To me both sound strange.

Where does Arrian write "emeis oi romaioi"?

Lucian says Arrian was "among the leading men of Rome" (ἀνὴρ Ῥωμαίων ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις). Not Greece.

And how about this one, then :

"καὶ Φροντῖνος, μεθ’ οὓς καὶ Ῥενᾶτος, Ῥωμαῖοι πάντες· Ἑλλήνων δὲ Αἰλιανὸς καὶ Ἀρριανός, Αἰνείας, Ὀνήσανδρος, Πάτρων, Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τοῖς Πολιορκητικοῖς"

"And Frontinus, with whom Renatus too and all the Romans. From the Greeks, Aelianos and Arrianos, Aenias, Onesandros, Patron, Appolodoros in his "about sieges" Joannes Laurentius Lydus Hist., De magistratibus populi Romani. Page 74 line 20.

As I did, Lydus here differentiates between Roman and Greek writers of military treatises.

But we digress. You were drawing a distinction between "Roman sources" and "Greek sources". I wondered why you had drawn such a distinction? I assumed (wrongly, it seems) that you meant "Latin texts" and "Greek texts". I am bemused by your classification of the works of Arrian and Onasander as "Greek" (as opposed to "Roman"), simply because they wrote in Greek, -- I'm bemused, because their subject matter was the Roman army, and their works were for consumption by Romans. How does Vegetius differ from this?

I drew that distinction because in order to categorize authors of surviving military manuals/treatises it plays a great role as to their style, their comments and analysis, their proposals and suggestions. To me it is very important that we have no such surviving Roman "Roman" text apart from Vegetius (and maybe Frontinus, if we count Strategemata as military treatises, I usually do), since because of this it makes it impossible to judge whether Vegetius' work was representative or not of what the "Roman" Romans would call such a treatise. How can I judge whether "Roman" Romans "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. (OP)", when there are so few such texts left written by them? On the other hand, I grouped the Greeks together to also make a point about them, that is that they did not always ignore (....OP....). I guess that someone could differentiate in terms of time (pre- or post- Imperial times / before- or afer- the Roman conquest of Greece). I just chose to do so differently, because I just wanted to show that, in my opinion, an opinion cannot be easily voiced regarding "Roman" Roman authors of military treatises. Also, the "subject" of Arrian's Techne Tactice is hardly the Roman Army and if you are speaking of his Ektaxis, then do you propose that we should label an author according to the subject of his work?

My question to you guys had to do with the scholarly proper way to address the "ethnicity"/"cultural group"/"epoch" of any such ancient author. I am not buffled by the proposal that Arrian, Diodorus or Onasander could be called "Roman" under a certain perspective, but that calling them "Greek" would be strange. I was intrigued by your opinions and it was indeed a new thing for me that differentiating between Romans and Greeks could cause problems (or bemusement...). Three esteemed members of this forum were indeed kind enough to voice their opinions and I (and I think that this is indeed a very interesting subject, which might need a thread on its own) clearly see that there is no real consensus on how this issue should universally be addressed.

Duncan at first only raised an objection regarding Onasander, not Arrian. He offered a generalized "Roman" term (as I saw it) and also brought up the issue of original language in which a work was written. Then Jass offered the issue of "Greek" starting being problematic after Christ, which I totally accept for years later than that of Arrian, when Christianity was indeed prominent and for non-religious texts. He also wrote that although he would definitely label Arrian a Roman there would be no reason for anyone to call Onasander or Polybius a Roman. Robert also would call Arrian a Roman, he also wrote of the parallel examples of Romano-Britons and Gallo-Romans though and asked whether we would not rather use such terms for cases like Arrian too and also brought in the ethnic identity issue of the authors asking when Greeks started feeling Romans. Then Duncan was more harsh when he suggested that I only chose to call Arrian and Onasander Greeks because they wrote in Greek, which I hope I made very clear is not the case, since I was the first to make this point when I offered examples of Jews or Romans writing in Greek. It seems to me that although superficially it seems like "me against you three" argument, it really is not so. I personally think that we all have a problem clearly saying what would be scholarly best and in which cases.

So, partly in order to see whether I suffered under an illusion or whether my question was indeed an issue, I did some quick looking up in JSTOR and Googlebooks and found many instances of Arrian (that was what I mainly looked for) being labeled a Greek in scholarly works. For example B. Campbell calls him "a Greek senator from Bithynia" in his "Teach Yourself How To Be A General". Christine Alexander, in her 1937 (quite a while back, yes) "A Boeotian Cup and a Hellenistic Bronze" calls him "a Greek writer of the 2nd century AD". Morton S. Enslin (1954) calls him "a Greek historian" (A Gentleman Among the Fathers). Pelham (1896) discusses how "a Greek philosopher" had been entrusted with a military command by the Romans (Arrian as Legate of Cappadocia). He is also included in the 1941 book "The Greek Historians" of F.R.B. Godolphin . What is even more interesting and would here raise a controversy, is a review of L.Casson's "Selected Satires of Lucian" (1962) by M.D. Mcleod, where he scolds the author for the mistake of labeling Arrian "a Roman historian". Michael Grant calls him "a Greek historian" (Greek and Latin authors, 800 B.C.-A.D. 1000, 1980). Well... of course there are many more examples but I am certain that these suffice to show that at least in some kind of context, Arrian is scholarly correctly called "a Greek". I did find instances of Arrian being labeled "Roman" too like by Roger W. Anderson (From Polis to Empire, the Ancient World, C. 800 B.C.-A.D. 500, 2002) yet, I cannot but comment on the fact that in my subjective opinion, it seemed to me that finding examples of the latter was much harder.

And so the question remains... what would be the criteria to call someone a "Roman", both "a Roman" and "a Greek" or only "a Greek". The city he was born in? The country/empire he was born in? The language he wrote in? His cultural background? The broad historical period he wrote in? Or is it just too complicated an issue and we should just do what our heart and knowledge ordain in each individual case?

[D B Campbell]

I am just amazed that one could rebel at the thought of terming [Arrian] a Greek, while I have read a great number of works where he was anyways called a Greek historian/author (maybe because of my own perspective I always thought they were the greater majority and maybe I am mistaken but we could look into that). Being a subject of the Roman Empire certainly did not erase one's more localized ethnicity.

You are, imho, confusing ethnicity with chosen language. Arrian is only a Greek inasmuch as he was born in the Greek east, like Josephus. However, he definitely was a Roman (i.e. a citizen of the Roman empire, and rather an important one, at that). And, as a man of culture from the "Greek east", his native language was Greek. Thus (again, imho) it is correct to call him a Roman (his ethnicity), and it is equally correct to call him a Greek writer (his language). I would not, however, call him a Greek. btw I am not "rebelling at the thought of terming him a Greek" -- I am simply pointing out that (imho) it is incorrect to call him a Greek.

And how about this one, then : "καὶ Φροντῖνος, μεθ’ οὓς καὶ Ῥενᾶτος, Ῥωμαῖοι πάντες· Ἑλλήνων δὲ Αἰλιανὸς καὶ Ἀρριανός, Αἰνείας, Ὀνήσανδρος, Πάτρων, Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τοῖς Πολιορκητικοῖς"

Touché! It is interesting that, in differentiating Latin authors from Greek authors, Lydus calls the former group "Romans".

I drew that distinction because in order to categorize authors of surviving military manuals/treatises it plays a great role as to their style, their comments and analysis, their proposals and suggestions.

I agree. This is why I assumed you were differentiating Greek and Latin. But you have said that this is not the basis of your differentiation. (I still think that it is!) :wink:

Also, the "subject" of Arrian's Techne Tactice is hardly the Roman Army and if you are speaking of his Ektaxis, then do you propose that we should label an author according to the subject of his work?

As a matter of fact, the Taktika does address the subject of the Roman army, in the famous description of the hippika gymnasia. But I think we are splitting hairs. Arrian is a Roman who wrote in Greek: ergo, he is "a Greek writer" (I have no dispute with this), but also a Roman (you seem to want to dispute this).

Duncan at first only raised an objection regarding Onasander, not Arrian. He offered a generalized "Roman" term (as I saw it) and also brought up the issue of original language in which a work was written.

Just to backtrack: I understood you to mean that you were looking for a technical text which gave a "Roman" perspective, and I suggested Onasander. (I could equally well have mentioned Arrian, but didn't.)

He [Jass] also wrote that although he would definitely label Arrian a Roman there would be no reason for anyone to call Onasander or Polybius a Roman.

I agree that there would be no point in labelling Polybius a "Roman". This was not his ethnicity. He was born in Greece before it was part of the Roman empire. Onasander, on the other hand, is more difficult to classify. He moved in the highest circles of the Roman empire, but was obviously not a Roman citizen (unlike Arrian). However, the more important classifier (as with Polybius) is that he wrote in Greek. He is a Greek writer who (imho) wrote "a Roman treatise". (This, I think, is the source of our confusion.)

Then Duncan was more harsh when he suggested that I only chose to call Arrian and Onasander Greeks because they wrote in Greek, which I hope I made very clear is not the case, since I was the first to make this point when I offered examples of Jews or Romans writing in Greek.

I'm sorry that my contribution seemed "harsh". I was genuinely trying to divine your criteria for defining the different treatises. I believe that the only sensible way to classify them (imho) is by language, but maybe you have a more subtle approach?

[Macedon]

You are, imho, confusing ethnicity with chosen language. Arrian is only a Greek inasmuch as he was born in the Greek east, like Josephus. However, he definitely was a Roman (i.e. a citizen of the Roman empire, and rather an important one, at that). And, as a man of culture from the "Greek east", his native language was Greek. Thus (again, imho) it is correct to call him a Roman (his ethnicity), and it is equally correct to call him a Greek writer (his language). I would not, however, call him a Greek. btw I am not "rebelling at the thought of terming him a Greek" -- I am simply pointing out that (imho) it is incorrect to call him a Greek.

The question of ethnicity within the Roman Empire is a very long and stressful one. It always depends on many factors, from whom the most important might be the specific era and place. You seem to suggest, correct me if I am wrong, that any inhabitant of the Roman Empire born after his homeland was made into a Roman province should be termed a Roman when his work is studied. Of course I respect that (as all educated opinions), but my question has mainly been : Is this what would be considered norm in the discipline of history? Or is there just no such norm? This has nothing to do with chosen language. I always called Josephus a Jewish author although he was a Roman citizen and wrote in Greek. It would sound awkward to me to call him a Roman or Greek, but maybe it isn't and most would?

I agree. This is why I assumed you were differentiating Greek and Latin. But you have said that this is not the basis of your differentiation. (I still think that it is!) :wink: [/quote]

If by "Greek and Latin" you mean their chosen language then I would say no, it is not. I think we need some kind of terminology to differentiate among the different ethnicities (or sub-ethnicities) within the empire, we cannot just call them all Romans all the time.

As a matter of fact, the Taktika does address the subject of the Roman army, in the famous description of the hippika gymnasia. But I think we are splitting hairs. Arrian is a Roman who wrote in Greek: ergo, he is "a Greek writer" (I have no dispute with this), but also a Roman (you seem to want to dispute this).

The Techne Tactiki though is about the Greek system. What valuable things we read on the Roman one is side information. If you concentrate on his official citizenships, Arrian had many. He was a citizen of the Greek city of Nicomedia, he later officially became a citizen of Rome (Weren't by his time ) and I would also guess that he also was given Athenian citizenship too. Why would his second citizenship take precedence over his initial one? Again, I am trying to find a pattern here... At best, IMHO, Arrian was a capable man who as an adult chose to accept Roman citizenship in order to be able to fulfill his political ambitions. Roman citizenship is still not something that is freely and automatically given to all subjects of the empire. So, he is Roman because of his second citizenship but still... he was Greek not in language but in all aspects of his personality and education.

I agree that there would be no point in labelling Polybius a "Roman". This was not his ethnicity. He was born in Greece before it was part of the Roman empire. Onasander, on the other hand, is more difficult to classify. He moved in the highest circles of the Roman empire, but was obviously not a Roman citizen (unlike Arrian). However, the more important classifier (as with Polybius) is that he wrote in Greek. He is a Greek writer who (imho) wrote "a Roman treatise". (This, I think, is the source of our confusion.)

If our terming those authors should rely on whether they were born in free or conquered countries, then Onasander should be as Roman as Arrian even without the citizenship, which we cannot know whether he had taken or not. And wouldn't that kind of reasoning make Herodot and many others like him a Persian? Sorry if I am taxing you Duncan, I just think that most ethnic appellations I have come across in texts of scholar gravity tend to see things in a more "nationalistic" manner. I guess there is no rule after all and it falls upon our shoulders to use the terms we individually feel most appropriate... As for the language, would you say that it would be safer to classify authors according to chosen language instead of ethnicity then? Maybe it is but I cannot say that it is that usual... Calling Josephus a Greek still hurts my ears... Maybe using no ethnic classifier would be even safer. This is quite common in papers.

I'm sorry that my contribution seemed "harsh". I was genuinely trying to divine your criteria for defining the different treatises. I believe that the only sensible way to classify them (imho) is by language, but maybe you have a more subtle approach?

NP, as you see I am also trying to understand what would be more proper anyways... Things that we often take for granted even after tons of reading and studying are sometime contested and then we are left bemused and bewildered. I do not know what would be more sensible... I usually classify by language but here I really wanted to make a point between the broad nationalities (cultural mindsets/backgrounds etc) we know as "Romans" and "Greeks", at least as I understand them. This is why I further differentiated between those guys and the later Roman-Byzantine-Greek writing authors instead of also calling them Greek or Roman.

[D B Campbell]

As for the language, would you say that it would be safer to classify authors according to chosen language instead of ethnicity then?

As a matter of fact, I think it's safer to judge each on his own merits. It has never particularly bothered me whether Polybius was writing in Greek and Livy in Latin, whether Josephus was writing in Greek and Tacitus in Latin, and so on. But I'm a historian rather than a classicist.

I'm not sure there's much mileage on analyzing how Vegetius sees the Roman army vis-à-vis how a Greek writer like Arrian sees it. We usually use any and all sources together to try to gain a balanced picture. hock: However, maybe you're on to something.

[eugene]

And what were narratological and conceptual differences between the Greek and Roman war treatises and the describing wars and battles in the works of Greek and Roman historians?

[Lyceum]

This is a very interesting point, generally I'm interested in the uses, abuses and constructions of ethnicity in the ancient world, well focusing on Greece rather than the Roman. I'd like to get back to this re: Arrian etc after shortly once I've handed my (almost final) drafts in.

Re: Romaios in Arrian, a quick lemma search on TLG brings up a stupid amount (15+ pages) of instances, I'll go through them later when I have more time. I think, contrarily, its much more common to find him listed as a Roman, particularly in more recent scholarly literature. As a side note, People really under-estimate how rapidly older lit can go out of date in this field especially since the rapid increase of professionalisation in the last four or so decades.

re: Roman portrayals of Alexander D Spenser's book is usually the most cited book though its probably more useful for the citations. The Alexander historians (sigh, must we deem them thus?) are really interesting from this (and a textual, quellenforschung) point of view actually, in my opinion more interesting than the stories they narrate.

[Robert Vermaat]

A very interesting discussion. Indeed, Lydus is a great find, and I really wonder what his reasons were to a) make distinctions and b) to put Arrian in the Greek camp. Language?

Yet (part of my point) still stands, which is the confusion which arises when we are not sure on which grounds we differentiate.

My original reply was about a differentiation between 'Greeks vs. Romans' when we are discussion treatises. I think we have so far established that Arrian did not write a ‘Greek’ treatise (i.e., in the Hellenistic military tradition)? I see his as a Roman writer here.

We subsequently entered geographical and cultural background: I see Arrian as a Roman citizen of Greek background: Gaeco-Roman would be a good (but not necessary dominant) description.

As a writer, he’s clearly Greek.

If we’re going to use modern labels, he could even be considered Turkish! Best avoid that. :wink:

[Ghostmojo]

I wonder how nationalistic the ancients were - particularly cultures like Greece and Rome, who clearly overlapped in influencing each other?

Roman authors don't seem to dwell upon Alexander being Greek etc. but just refer to him as Megale Alexandros, or whatever their version was, without making a huge comment about nationality. Almost as if he was one of their own - from the same pantheon...