How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[Vindex]

Mark

Perhaps you have got the response you were looking for in your last post but to me it just about sums up every undergraduate debate ever held between ancient military historians and archaeologists (and I am assuming from your post you would sit on the historian side). Ah, the halcyon days...

It is frustrating that sometimes the evidence can blind the application of common sense, but without the archaeology many wild suppositions would stray into "scholarly" research; there are quite enough as it is, in my opinion. There is also a dangerous lack of study of the primary sources displayed too; many regurgitate a held scholarly view without interrogating (and translating) the sources themselves. Questioning some of the great names certainly takes a lot of nerve and you have to be very sure of your ground to be taken seriously, but it does happen if you use the balanced evidence of history and historical context, and by that I mean the archaeology (and experimental archaeology).

Bearing in mind the many, many threads on this forum caused by questions and debate about what the ancient sources say about events, and what they left unsaid and how many wild and wondrous suppositions are made (some totally unfounded) sometimes it is only the archaeology we have to fall back on.

[Robert]

Bryan wrote: Other veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will recognize these cultural issues. It was like being in on an alien planet sometimes. But in hindsight, the Iraqis had more in common culturally with ancient Romans than we, the Americans, did, as they were fatalistic and superstitious, had a corrupt and incompetent officer class based off patronage system, believed in bravery in battle imbeded as part of culture (like virtus), had similar concepts of family life, tribal powers and the power of the man of the family (like paterfamilia), had similar sexual norms, etc.

This I think answers the original question very well. As he points out, cultural difference determine how close or far removed we find ourselves from other civilisations, be they modern or ancient. Mankind itself has a good many common traits deeply imbedded in our beings, allowing us to co-exist with one another to a greater or lesser extent. I have been to many countries around the globe, even lived there for shorter or longer periods, and have always been struck by how basicly similar we are, but also how great cultural differences (which are taught!!) can be. So an American from the backwoods of Georgia differs greatly from one hailing from New York, but they are closer in common values then that those same Americans are to a Dutchman. Once religion motivated cultural beliefs kick in, the chasm grows deeper very quickly. So the "Romans" were very different from us, just as "us" are very different from one another, once you step outside our universal traits that govern what makes us human.

[diegis]

You bring up some very valid comparisons but you could remove Roman and substitute ancient Chinese for all of them and it would apply just as much. There are only so many ways to operate militarily, especially at a preelectronic, premodern era. In order to communicate, flags and musical instruments would be necessary. In order to shoot arrows and rocks a long way, torsion devices would need to be created. In order for soldiers to proficient or in shape and carry out combat operations, training and physical conditioning is necessary. Spies and scouts were not created by or even unique to the Roman, nor was the concept of training, professionalized militaries, separating large groups of warriors into cohesives subunits, or any of the other examples you provided. Maybe the medicos, but most of them would have been quacks anyway with little real knowledge (as compared to modern medics in western nations).

The militaries of the modern western world are all based on the military systems of England, France, America, Russia, and Germany of the 19th-20th centuries, who were pioneers of their day. Add in a touch of modern ideas that originated after WWII, such as equality and human rights. Before that, those militaries evolved from Age of Enlightenment armies and late Renaissance versions, like the Swiss, French and Spanish, who dominated militarily. Before that, during the Medieval era, there was a military system in western Europe based on concepts like feudalism. Before that, there were barbarian tribes. What I am trying to get at, is that the similarities we see between the modern military and the Romans isn't the result of evolutionary progress, its cosmetic. The Romans (at least the military systems of the Republic and Principate era) were specific to a narrow time frame and culture and ceased to exist even in the late Roman army. Those similarities exist because "efficient" militaries by nature have to act a specific way. We don't do things because the Romans did it that way, we do them because sometimes the reason for doing something is the same reason they would do something, so you end up with similar concepts and methods of dealing with problems. At a glance its always interesting to see the similarities. But look deeper and those similarities disappear, as the Romans were a very unique people, who did things completely different from their own contemporaries.

Well, I suppose the comparision with Chinese is a good one too, however Romans were here (in Europe / "western world") and were known (as much as they were), unlike the Chinese.

I agree too that people from different geographical areas and even different time periods may come up at the end with similar concepts and methods of dealing with similar problems.
I agree as well that some things evolved, other inovations appeared (especially after aparition and spread of firearms, and not just bigger guns but individual firearms too, even if the concept of supressive fire or "sniping" may have existed since the ancient time of bow and arrows).

But I still do see the Roman army as the archetype of (at least many) modern "western" armies, even if just at image level or in subconsciousness. I mentioned the example with the training, oreder and discipline, the eagle symbol, the triumphal marches with shiny weapons and uniforms, the names and nicknames of military units. Even some extreme nationalists as Nazis used symbology of Romans, same marchings, the salute (thought to be of Roman origin, but thats debatable), the "heil Hitler" vs "ave Caesar", the flags with the eagle on top which was basically a copy of the Roman legions vexiliums, just replacing their emblems with a zvastica etc.

Yes, the Roman army was unique back then (maybe only Dacians come a bit more closer as organization, including the use of catapults and balistae on the batlefield or during sieges but nevertheless they had Roman military advisers before, either desertors either officially send by Romans).
But the way they were (or what we know about) have sometimes too striking similarities to overlook them.
They have a selection process, the new recruits were trained, have a bureaucracy (from keeping all sorts of evidences in their unit to paying the salaries to soldiers, and "salary" with its variation in diferent languages is a word coming exactly from the Romans and the payment of legionares).
They were organized in subunits and units (yes, not something unique, but in Europe back then it was), have a name and a flag for those units, and a sense of cohesion and pride for that. They fight too for patriotic reasons at moments (SPQR, glory of Rome, defending the Patria-fatherland etc).
They were part of a larger system of Roman state politic that included politics, spies, bribing, economic deals.

They adopted foreign things when they see them fit or necessary (weapons, armors, tactics), or adapted themselves to enemies when was needed, they have a logistic system that was surpassed just in Napoleonic era. And I think I read somewhere that Vegetius "De re militari" (if I remember correct) was still read in Napoleon army, as a source of inspiration.

Sure, there are many differences as well, I agree with this too, I even mentioned ones. Their society had differences but similarities as well. We can look at urbanization back then, and the cities today.
They had paved roads betwen cities and cities with multilevel buildings (apartment like buildings), sewers, current water (by aqueducts), theaters, libraries, taverns and such (places where you go to drink or eat something), brothels, arenas (for sport or horse races, etc, and obviously the famous gladiator fights), circuses, palaces, temples, gardens, marketplaces with stuffs from all over the world, even firefighters and a sort of police at some point, and as well laws and lawyers and judges (Roman law influences exist even today in "western world").
There where even fans clashes similar with those of football hooligans of our days, I think some fans of gladiators of a town clashed with some from other town if I rememebr correct what I read about it.
They do had slavery, indeed, but had too a sort of religious liberty in the empire (with some exceptions), they had a Senat and even two "parties" at some point, fighting for power (populares and optimates), and a Tribune of plebeians who had the "veto" right.

So I think that Romans were different in some ways (very different) but similar (very similar) in other, and some of the things we have today are inspired or influenced by those of them.

[Mark Hygate]

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.

I'm sure the archaeologists who have spent a life's work picking through the contents of Roman rubbish tips and sewers, peeling off mummy wrappings, laboriously deciphering scraps of papyrus and trying to analyse masses of birdlime-encrusted skeletons in order to tease out just a few more scraps of evidence to help us understand the past would gladly take a pause for reflection on the futility of their endeavours - but I hope they do not.

Nathan - did I say anything negative about archaeologists? Apart from to confirm how valuable they are.....I wrote this and only this:

"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."

[Mark Hygate]

Frankly, who would want to be bothered, if they had to contend with the rant that followed this comment? .............

Thank you for replying - but in what way was that a 'rant'? It expressed a point of view, which you obviously disagree with - so you dismiss it as a rant? You have no interest in questioning the veracity of the written 'evidence', but accept it within only narrow lines?

[Mark Hygate]

I find it funny and a bit exasperating

Well, that makes it two of us - except I would have said 'almost laughable' and 'rather shocking'. In short it seems that someone who suggests a countervailing view is simply dismissed because the subject(s) were not written about; and with no thought they may, just possibly might, have a point - just because they are alive today....

...that you can claim that there exists cultural differences the US and UK ...... and having fought continuously as allies in the 20th century

This is not the place for that debate, noting simply that America was not part of Britain, but a colony, badly treated and, not unreasonably at all when they had the chance they took it. But if you are ever interested you may wish to review the differences in dates for WWI and WW2 for the US and Britain; the policy of Isolationism the Americans desired; and the detailed provisions of the Lend Lease Act.

... But then you can't accept that a completely different culture, which existed 2,000 years ago in Italy, is different from the modern UK.

It's the 'dismissive' modern bit that I don't understand - nor the concentration on extremes...

.....

... Let's take a look at some differences:
- Republican Militia Army (Rome) vs. Professional Standing Army (UK)

Rome - ~400 years from City State Farmer militia to professional army. England(Britain) some 800 years (twice as long) from Saxon fyrd (farmer militia) through Feudal peasant farmer militia to professional army. Delay due to colapse of said Roman empire, pesky Northmen, but reasons for the transition very similar.

- Generals and Officers are all Politicians or amateurs (Rome) vs. Professional Officer Corps (UK)

Rome changes to long term appointees under gifted 'amateurs' (calling Caesar, Pompey, Agrippa, Scipio (both) and so many others 'amateurs' is harsh, but I accept the word) - institutes the tres militae, provides Senators with a praefectus castrorum and eventually replaces most senatorial candidates with 'professional' praefectus legionis. Britain has just the same (if not immeasurably worse - people like Wellington the lovely exception); introduces professional officers only with the artillery and engineers before changing relatively recently in the scheme of things.

... - No Formal Officer Training (Rome) vs. Completely standardized Training Program (UK)

The issue is that there was training and always will be - not how it is carried out

...- Methods and Tactics Based on Mos Maoirum (Rome) and Tradition vs. Established Doctrine Provided by Centralized Command Authority Based on Tradition and Efficiency (UK)

As above - the simple difference is that more can read - the 'modern' world is now more complex - oh to have been a Roman!

...- Excessive use of Violence in Society and Warfare (Rome) vs. Banned the Death Penalty and no Corporal Punishment in Military (UK)

Well, lots could be said about violence in our current society....but when I last checked (1991) 'desertion in the face of the enemy' was still a capital offence (one of the last 3). That it doesn't happen is due to other reasons.

...- Military methods based on most Destructive Weaponry: Spear, Javelin, Sling, Sword (Rome) vs. Possesses Tanks, Machine Guns, Attack Aircraft and Nuclear Weapons (UK)

Really? I think razing Carthage, killing or enslaving all the inhabitents and sowing the ground with salt is not entirely dissimilar to the use of a nuke - except the Romans were more enviromentally friendly. The result is essentially the same.

...You yourself were an officer, yes? You were trained as one at some centralized depot somewhere with hundreds of other officers. The methods of your instruction ..............

We were trained - what does it matter how? The need for training (and why not having it can be bad) is the issue. This is a great example on the terrible concentration on 'how' - and not 'why'.

...these comparisons where when you started comparing centuries to platoons, optios to platoon sergeants, and then trying to place modern "command and management" techniques ................The different and specific definition............discussing how its obvious that a Roman commanded from the rear because someone taught you that's what officers are supposed to do. Especially when you then declare that all historical and archaeological sources stating otherwise are simply propaganda, .................

The nub - I'd almost suggest deliberate dismissal simply using words that, for some special reason, are considered so emotive. Please tell me how it is wrong to suggest a reasonable comparison between a 'platoon' of 3+ sections and a 'century' of 10 sections in terms of structure - which is what I did. None of those things are 'modern' - only they are made so - they are just words.

Given the differences in the tactical methods of the Greeks and Romans, the flexibility shown in the battlefield movements of the Roman units - the likelihood that the centurions were directly involved and moved around themselves to enable it is certainly something that should be suggested (which I did). I did not say that they 'always commanded from the rear' - but that they could have been there, and elsewhere, and not a permanent fixture at the front (like the less flexible Greeks) - as well as thinking that because of the structure. Did I base that on knowledge and experience - yes - the study of tactics throughout the last 2,500 years and practical experience, learned, practiced and then taught in the field before computers and even radios! But no - dismissed without any discussion - simply because the sources don't mention it. Did I ever suggest that the centurion never fought at the front? I think not.

That standards are there for the General to see - yes they are. They can indicate to him the whereabouts of his units and what they are doing - above the dust churned up by feet. He knows that's what the standards indicate that to him because he has imbued with honour, reinforced and trained the men to stay with their standards. A brief review of 'Root Cause Analysis' may help. Do you read that in the histories - no (well, yes, certainly alluded to in Caesar's Commentaries). Why would you want to - so it wasn't written. And thus dismissed.

Lots of detail of 'platoon sergeants' in the Napoleonic period - very like how I see the role of the optio - so suggested as a likely comparison. Claimed as 'proof' - certainly not.

'Management' - 'the checking that what was supposed to have been done has been'. The word is shorter - it was used accurately. Dismissed because it's a modern word in English - the tool of most internet communication', but perhaps not here.

'Propaganda' - 'Imbuing and encouraging a martial tradition based upon heroic examples, to create and foster a mindset that stands in the face of adversity' I used 10 letters instead - I'm sorry! It was an accurate use of the word - don't read into a word what isn't there.

I do not expect or ask for responses. I do not denigrate or dismiss the knowledge shown by people on the forum, in many cases I stand amazed at the ability to recall. I ask only that you stop dismissing others (it's not only me - I'm just more resilient than some) simply because they question the accepted and extolled version of history based only on a strict adherence to only what was written about. Some of us read the same and want to understand 'why' - not just ''what' happened to be written.

[Renatus]

It expressed a point of view, which you obviously disagree with - so you dismiss it as a rant?

I don't dismiss it because I disagree with it; I dismiss it because it is intemperate. All that stuff about 'ivory towers', in my book, makes it a rant. As far as I am concerned, this thread is going nowhere; it is just degenerating into a sterile reiteration of entrenched positions.

[Nathan Ross]

But no - dismissed without any discussion - simply because the sources don't mention it.

I think a ten page debate counts as discussion, doesn't it?

[Timianus]

And that's only the start of the problem. Because military effectiveness depends greatly on culture. US military advisors - who do know how US troops are trained! - can't get modern Arab troops to behave like US ones, because their cultural background is so different. See eg
www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amd...deatkine_arabs1.html

A little O.T., but I wonder why no one applies that same rationale to the effectiveness of gothic troops fighting for the romans (entirely different martial culture...discipline vs individual heroism)

[Bryan]

And that's only the start of the problem. Because military effectiveness depends greatly on culture. US military advisors - who do know how US troops are trained! - can't get modern Arab troops to behave like US ones, because their cultural background is so different. See eg
www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amd...deatkine_arabs1.html

A little O.T., but I wonder why no one applies that same rationale to the effectiveness of gothic troops fighting for the romans (entirely different martial culture...discipline vs individual heroism)

It could explain a lot more. Evidently the Macedonians didn't think their infantry methods and tactics could be transfered over to other cultures. Experiments were conducted bu no other non-Greek/Hellenic society ever fully developed the phalangite for the long term.

The Romans had a similar issue with training foreign bodies of warriors to fight in their system. If I remember correctly, multiple other cultures like Numidia and Pontus attempted it but couldn't pull it off.

Cultural reasoning is often used as a probably cause for the great military reforms of the Later Roman army in equipment and tactics. It could merely be that the new "Corps" of the army said "We tried it your way for years, now we do it our way."

[ValentinianVictrix]

Of course anyone living 2000 years ago will be 'differrent' from us now. As I stated in a previous post in this topic, we live in a world dominated by electricity. Very few places on Earth do not have access to even basic electrical hook-ups. We totally depend on machines to heat our food, cool our food and freeze our food. We rely on well stocked shops and supermarkets to provide our food items and essential goods, and also we are paid salaries and wages which generally leads to us having enough to pay for luxury goods from time to time. The average worker can afford to provide for at least one main meal for their families each day, possibly two meals, which generally includes a proportion of meat. They can also generally afford at least one holiday for their family each year. Most of our populations live in houses with running drinkable water which can be made hot or cold as desired. A good number of people have access to quality health care. Life expentancy now is at least 60-80 years in the developed world, and in other areas this has risen from around 40 years to approximately 50-60 in the undeveloped world.

These are things that would be totally alien to 95% of the Roman population who would have been living on a subsistance diet each day, some not being able to eat for several days in a row. Most families lived together in a single cramped room, only the well-to-do lived in bigger houses and villa's. Water generally had to be obtained from streams and rivers unless you could afford to have a well or piped water in your property. Healthcare was rudimentary and life expectancy for the majority of the population would be between 30-40. Illnesses which are easily treated now were invariably fatal in ancient times, and a simple cut or splinter could lead to a loss of a limb due to infection.

I just cannot see how anyone cannot see how different we are to the Romans.

[Bryan]

Of course anyone living 2000 years ago will be 'differrent' from us now. As I stated in a previous post in this topic, we live in a world dominated by electricity. Very few places on Earth do not have access to even basic electrical hook-ups. We totally depend on machines to heat our food, cool our food and freeze our food. We rely on well stocked shops and supermarkets to provide our food items and essential goods, and also we are paid salaries and wages which generally leads to us having enough to pay for luxury goods from time to time. The average worker can afford to provide for at least one main meal for their families each day, possibly two meals, which generally includes a proportion of meat. They can also generally afford at least one holiday for their family each year. Most of our populations live in houses with running drinkable water which can be made hot or cold as desired. A good number of people have access to quality health care. Life expentancy now is at least 60-80 years in the developed world, and rising to around 50-60 in the undeveloped world.

These are things that would be totally alien to 95% of the Roman population who would have been living on a subsistance diet each day, some not being able to eat for several days in a row. Most amilies lived together in a single cramped room, only the well-to-do lived in bigger houses and villa's. Water generally had to be obtained from streams and rivers unless you could afford to have a well or piped water in your property. Healthcare was rudimentary and life expectancy for the majority of the population would be between 30-40. Illnesses which are easily treated now were invariably fatal in ancient times, and a simple cut or splinter could lead to a loss of a limb due to infection.

I just cannot see how anyone cannot see how different we are to the Romans.

Answer: Romantic Belief

Mark wrote:
As above - the simple difference is that more can read - the 'modern' world is now more complex - oh to have been a Roman!

He wants to live in Rome, therefore the modern UK in his mind is only a small skip away from Rome. A week without electricity and the Consuls will be declared and the rifles and tanks abandoned for gladii and testudo. :evil:

[Alexand96]

In answer to the OP's question - they were really, very different. Really. Very. Different. That is what I believe.

I would imagine that all of us Roman enthusiasts, if through some type of Hollywoodish Eisntein-Rosen Bridge calamity, were to be transported back to Rome anytime during the civilization's heyday, would very quickly come to regret it. And that's not to disparage our common interests and sometimes wishful thinking - they're all necessary if the study of the classics is to survive. But the question, which I must imagine we've all asked ourselves in the past, is naïve in the extreme.

"Time changes all things"....

[Mark Hygate]

I admit defeat and wish therefore simply to learn and be 'shown the light'.

What, please, need we suggest is changed for the exception in current definitions?

human being
hjuːmənˈbiːɪŋ/
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

I'm not always fond of dear old Wiki - but I suspect we're on safe ground here. What do we need to create and insert as an exception to the opening paragraphs along the lines of - 'Exception: the Roman period of approximately 500BCE to 500CE when humans changed into Romans before becoming extinct; characterized by (insert words here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human[url=http://][/url]

For all along that is what I have been after - as far as I am concerned we still have 2 arms, 2 legs, process food and water for energy, excrete waste, brains still work on a binary system, the fight or flight response remains and all the rest.

All the things you have all presented are merely environmental and sociological factors that affect what we do and how we live and peripheral elements like health, not why we do things - the basics - upon which things like relationships (including leadership and 'command') impact. We can move, fight, carry and all the rest - just like 'Romans' did.

That's why I do not believe the fundamentals have changed. Please tell me what I have missed - for I think those definitions applied to the Romans too? Genuinely not understanding and wish to know.

[Bryan]

Mark,

How you think, act, and process things is not just biologically related. You yourself, because of who you are, where you are from, and what you have done, are completely unique as compared to a modern tribesman living in say Papua New Guneia. It doesn't matter if biologically you and that tribesman are similar and of the same species. If you would to be stuck in his world, and he in your own, both of you would be lost, metaphorically and physically too probably, because culturally you are different. Therefore, how you both would interpret different things is also culturally biased. The fact is that as many similarities as you see and want to believe exist between you and an Ancient Roman, the reality is that culturally, you are not at all similar. Therefore, as you frequently do in nearly every thread you participate in, when you declare your own mindset and "common sense" is how an ancient culture existed, you are exercising a logical fallacy.

You dropped a definition, so I will too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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."

Sound familiar?