How really \'different\' were the Romans?

[Mark Hygate]

..............Sound familiar?

Oh, have no fear I completely understand that - and have always appreciated where you and others have come from, even though I haven't agreed. But, genuinely and honestly, as per the first element of my OP - that has not been my stance. I was arguing from the 'human' definition.

And it's only that which has shaped my thoughts when presenting each time - even, sadly, if it has not come across that way - for we have adopted those entrenched positions and adopted a bunker mentality.

For when it comes to 'moving' troops about, for example - I genuinely don't see why there should be any differences. It doesn't matter if the 'soldier' thinks he might be killed (extreme - perhaps 'beaten up' may suffice) if he doesn't, or whether he will get extra duties - he would still receive orders, move and walk/march into position; changes positions; open ranks; etc - in a broadly similar way - for we're just made like that. That's all. So yes, you can train and encourage a soldier to almost revere his standard - and you could do now with the same reinforcements ('colours' in the Napoleonic period are very similar).

So - I do understand what you've all been saying, but I still don't see how those things affect the fundamentals. Nor for ideas that I may have and suggest (and only ever that) for better places the centurion might wish to stand to enable the tactical movements the Romans introduced - and practically no one else did at the time. Sadly, therefore, I'm still not quite getting it.

[diegis]

I think the views are split, kinda like that question with the glass, is half empty or is half full?
Some seem to see just the empty part. And I agree too that we are very different in many ways.
In the same time is hard to say we're not similar in some ways, or we, the modern ones, werent influenced by them or didnt do some things pretty similar.
Sometime is just the means of doing them that evolved (the technology) but the way we doing them or why we doing them is similar

Even the differences had become bigger just in contemporary era, like from late of XIX century on.
In the year 1800 most people were living not much different then ancient ones. No electricity, no "in house" running water, same rudimentary healthcare.

A Roman patrician from the year 100 AD with running water in his villa, with central heating through pipes in the floor, glass windows, toillet with flushing water and sewers under his house, and benefiting of all the things his city back then offered him (libraries, arenas, taverns, markets, etc etc) was actualy living much more close to the way a person from the year 2000 from a "western" country live today (except electricity and use of modern transportation means), compared with a people from the year 1800 from the same country.
Gosh, I saw once a documentary (not sure how realistic) where they said that ancient Roman doctors not just that had tools almost similar with the modern ones but performed even cosmetic surgery operations, and not just for wounded soldiers but for some upper classes or rich people too

Sure, most of the people in Roman empire werent patricians or rich enough to have all those.

Same way, a Roman legionar will be in some ways no different then a modern soldier of our era griping his rifle and looking nervous after the enemy.
Probably similar emotions before battle, re-checking the orders and battle plan in his mind, both checking their armor and weapon, maybe praying a little, even if just in their mind. Writting a letter maybe (or asking some comrade to write it for him, not everyone knew to write and read, but even the almost 100% literacy in our days is pretty new at history scale even in the most developed countries), to some family or friends, from his camp.
Training and exercising with his weapons and formation.
Joking with comrades to relax a little, talking of a nice hooker or some favorite in a gladiator game or horse race or football team, stuffs like that, some maybe bragging about their previous battle deeds or how they will kill the enemy, or how much they can drink before get drunk.
Following the order and signals from commanders, wheter will be a flag or a trompet or something heard on his radio station, watching the "field artilery" opening fire at the enemy, fixing the direction and elevation according to the wind and position, then watching the cavalry (or tanks) maneuvering on flanks, attacking the enemy positions etc.
Then here is where they were more tough, fighting hand to hand in a more exhausting physically and psychologically way, and probably most of them feeling (much) less affected by what they do and what they see, being more acustomed with a harsh or bloody way of life.
Sure, there was the mass murdering of civilians, rape and pillaging, the enslaving the enemy population, executions and such, and these are less present today (but still exist sometime).
Surely Romans had a dark and bad side too and werent just the good guys with a shiny image

[Bryan]

I think the views are split, kinda like that question with the glass, is half empty or is half full?
Some seem to see just the empty part. And I agree too that we are very different in many ways.
In the same time is hard to say we're not similar in some ways, or we, the modern ones, werent influenced by them or didnt do some things pretty similar.
Sometime is just the means of doing them that evolved (the technology) but the way we doing them or why we doing them is similar
...

I eat hunt, eat food, have fought other men in battle, and have sex with women. Does that make me similar to a early homo sapien from the stone age? Sure, why not. They do the same. Therefore in a lot of ways we're the same. Wait a minute, me, a man living in America in the 21st century, the same as a cave man? That can't be true? Right? Wouldn't that be the most generalized comparison ever? Looks look at it in detail.

When I see a herd of deer, I don't run after them and try to run the deer to death before I club it with a branch or stab it will a sharpened rock. I set up in a blind and shoot one. Or I come up with some other efficient hunting method that has evolved over thousands of years. When I eat, I grab my food from my refrigerator that someone else almost always killed and prepared and I heat it up. Often, this food comes from other places in the world, nowhere near where I live. When I fought other men in battle, I didn't need to worship a standard, I didn't seek solace in reading the movements of birds or the entrails of animals, nor did I freak out because it thundered during battle. I used modern weaponry and the most efficient tactics possible, which are designed using scientific methods, such as statistics and the study of history and human behavior and psychology. Screw tradition. I'd sooner frag an officer than charge bare chested at an enemy machine position because he's too clueless to understand modern methods. And when I have sex with women I didn't rape them silly while still covered in the blood of their dead male family members. Prostitution is not only illegal its immoral, exploits oppressed women and is a good way to develop an STD. When I got married I didn't have to deal with dowries and I didn't buy my wife or have to steal her. Because I'm not actually like a cave man. Nor a Roman, because we're different cultures.

Also, the term Patrician really means "Father of the City of Rome" (a much abbreviated definition). Its incorrectly used to mean rich person, at least in the context of the time period you mentioned. As examples, both Sulla and Caesar were of Patrician families and were known to have grown up either outright poor or at least not all that wealthy.

[Timianus]

It is a mixed bag. Yes, the Romans were humans, with human desires and emotions. Yes, the very wealthy enjoyed luxuries that are similar to some of the basic necessities of modern life. Yes, they had to eat, defecate, and do the things every human being must do. And, yes, when reading some of the personal letters and inscriptions, there is some vague sense of similarity. Yes, one can see many comparisons to modern times what with rampant corruption, patronage, vote buying, etc... One can also see some vague similarities with access to courts in the republican period, going to the gymnasium after the business day, etc.

But, and a BIG but, culturally, the are entirely alien. You are talking about a culture in which it was ok to murder live infants because they were female, a culture that encouraged and celebrated the oppression and death of other human beings. A culture that viewed other humans as property, and viewed any conquered people as being sub-human, or deserving of their fate. A culture where soldiers expected to be able to loot, burn, rape, and pillage people they defeated in battle....even if they were fellow romans. A culture that believed chicken entrails predicted the future. Roman "civilization" for all of its "grandeur" was quite barbaric. For gods sake, they watched other human beings being tortured and killed (in gruesome ways) as entertainment.

That said, I also think there is a very fine line to our "civilization" and modern sensibilities that it is all to easy for society to degrade back to "might makes right" and superstition.

[diegis]

I will say as in that joke with a Rabin, you (and others who share similar views) are right, but Mark Hygate for example is right too. At least this is how I see the things

I eat hunt, eat food, have fought other men in battle, and have sex with women. Does that make me similar to a early homo sapien from the stone age? Sure, why not. They do the same. Therefore in a lot of ways we're the same. Wait a minute, me, a man living in America in the 21st century, the same as a cave man? That can't be true? Right? Wouldn't that be the most generalized comparison ever? Looks look at it in detail.

When I see a herd of deer, I don't run after them and try to run the deer to death before I club it with a branch or stab it will a sharpened rock. I set up in a blind and shoot one. Or I come up with some other efficient hunting method that has evolved over thousands of years.

Well, I think since the aparition of bow and arrow the hunting was close to how you will hunt today. The hunter will stalking too his prey, and would have been probably even better to that then most modern hunters (but was harder for him too, obviously). Especially as today you can shot a deer from 300 meters fairly easy with a good rifle. Back then he would have needed to come maybe at 30 meters to shot an arrow in the deer.

Some people use traps too, modern ones are iron/steel, with some "teeth" and a spring to close it or so when the animal step on it, back then they will dig a hole, put some sharp spikes in it for stabing the prey when fall in and cover it too with some branches and dirt to not be visible. I am pretty sure they knew how to cover their smell too when doing that trap, so not scare the animals away.
Same principle, different tools because of the advance of technology, bow and arrow-rifle, ancient traps-modern traps

When I eat, I grab my food from my refrigerator that someone else almost always killed and prepared and I heat it up. Often, this food comes from other places in the world, nowhere near where I live.

Sometime this was the case back then too. Going for example to Trajan market in Rome you'll find for sure quite few things from other places in the world (as far as India, if not China too). And the differences you mention, which obviously exist, are really from modern era, until the aparition of modern use of electricity people didnt lived much different then in previous eras.

When I fought other men in battle, I didn't need to worship a standard, I didn't seek solace in reading the movements of birds or the entrails of animals, nor did I freak out because it thundered during battle.

Well, (most of) the methods of indoctrination and mental preparation of soldiers for battle may be different today. But as Mark said too I think, the basics are the same. The principles are similar, one may fight for the country (motherland/fatherland) now or then, or for glory, or for money. Both may look at the unit flag (or traditions, or colors, or name) almost in a religious way of worship.
How they prepare them for that may differ, make them think they will win and rising their morale and fighting spirit based on some silly beliefes (for us today) was one method.
We do have priests too in some modern armies for example, soldiers may pray to God to protect them when in danger or wear some "lucky symbol" with them.

I used modern weaponry and the most efficient tactics possible, which are designed using scientific methods, such as statistics and the study of history and human behavior and psychology. Screw tradition. I'd sooner frag an officer than charge bare chested at an enemy machine position because he's too clueless to understand modern methods.

Romans used too the most modern weapons of their era and werent shy of taking from others what they see fit. They used too the study of history and their battles to improve their army. After lost battles they adapted and improved. They abandoned the phalanx and took from Samnites the maniples and scutum I think. They moved to fully profesional army, created the legions and cohors and such. Allowed a much more freedom for them, some as Tribunes or Centurions were able to make their own decisions depending on the situation at that moment on the battlefield without waiting the orders of the supreme commander or general who was leading the army. The battles against Macedonians are an example here.
They had at some point well developed tactics too, that worked almost by themselves even with some less good general in charge (sure, a really bad one will screw the battle or the situation nevertheless but thats not uncommon today either).
And I think just some Celts or some Germans were doing that silly bare chested charge :-)

And when I have sex with women I didn't rape them silly while still covered in the blood of their dead male family members. Prostitution is not only illegal its immoral, exploits oppressed women and is a good way to develop an STD. When I got married I didn't have to deal with dowries and I didn't buy my wife or have to steal her. Because I'm not actually like a cave man. Nor a Roman, because we're different cultures.

Yes, I was agree that on the other way Romans were very different, these are ones of those instances. Except the prostitution part which exist today too, and existed before Roman era probably (to not be understand that I agree in any way with the forced exploatation or opressing of women, I was just pointing an unfortunate similarity betwen our times).

However, cultural wise, you probably go to watch a movie at cinema (or watch it at TV) as a Roman was going to watch a play at the theater. Some like to watch a boxing match as many back then liked Gladiator fights. You read books, some back then was doing that as well.
The political intrigues are almost similar and Romans knew some mass psychology as well, see just "divide et impera" or "pane et circensis" still used in same way today. Romans had the parties of populares and optimates, you have the democrats and republicans. Americans were even big influenced by the Roman architecture when they build the US Capitol or Supreme Court building, or named towns after some role model Romans (Cincinnatus).

And if we came to politics, Roman women sometime had an important role even there, even if normally they were not allowed to be involved in politics. An example is Cornelia, the daughter of Scipio Africanus (my fav Roman general) and mother of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. She had a big influence in their education and even political career that attempted to reform the Roman society and give more rights to plebeians and common people. Women (at least from certain classes) were educated, go to schools when they were kids (same classes with boys up to an age), have the right to own properties and do as they please with them, were able to divorce and remarry without much difficulty. Women were involved in businesses too, I think one of Cicero's creditors was a woman.

And how Sallust describe Sempronia, a woman involved with Catilina and his conspiracy

<<One of these women was Sempronia, whose masculine boldness had already led her to commit many crimes. This woman was favoured by fortune in birth and beauty as well as in her husband and children. She was well read in Greek and Latin literature; she played the lyre and danced with greater skill than propriety warrants; and she had a number of other accomplishments all of the sort that promote dissipation. But to her nothing was more worthless than modesty and chastity. It is not easy to say which she threw away more wantonly, her money or her reputation. She was so oversexed that it was more often she who went after men than the other way around. She had often broken promises, disavowed her debts, and been an accessory to murder. Love of luxury combined with poverty had driven her headlong. And yet, she had real talents. She could write verse, make jokes, and converse with modesty, tenderness, or wantonness. She was a woman of considerable wit and charm.>>.

Then as recreational activities, is this looks familiar?
http://www.crystalinks.com/RomanWomenSports.jpg

Not to mention some of them participated even in gladiator fights (including not just random free women but even some from upper classes, same as some free Roman men did). I am sure some more knowledgeable person here can shed more light in this
http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_murray_0703.htm

It is known as well that to Scythians for example existed warrior women, we can see on Trajan Column as well how Dacian women torture Roman prisoners (so they participate either in battle either was the ones interogating and possibly killing war prisoners) and we know of Boudica and her revolt, so women back then werent always opressed, in fact had much more liberties and possibilities then women of more modern eras, not just medieval but even more close to us. I dont think a woman from a "puritan" era society back there enjoyed anyway near the rights and liberties a free (and arguably wealthy enough) woman from Roman times enjoyed, or women from Dacia, or Scythians, Sarmatians or even Celts.

Also, the term Patrician really means "Father of the City of Rome" (a much abbreviated definition). Its incorrectly used to mean rich person, at least in the context of the time period you mentioned. As examples, both Sulla and Caesar were of Patrician families and were known to have grown up either outright poor or at least not all that wealthy.

You're correct but I dont think Sulla or Caesar were quite at the level of some plebeian or peasent, living in a small poor house at the edge of the town or village

[Bryan]

Razvan,

If you look hard enough to can find similarities between a troop of chimpanzees hunting and human warfare. Cave men were nearly biologically identical to modern man yet no one can argue they weren't very different from us culturally. Same goes for any 2,000 year old culture whether it be Romans or other. The didn't think or act like you because their world, small similarities aside, was unique and alien to our own.

Also plebian doesn't mean poor people. Roman citizens were either patricians (decedents of the original fathers of the city) or plebians (the people, which included everyone else). By the time of Sulla and Caesar the 300-600 man senate was majority plebian. Patrician and plebian do not match rich or poor. They are purely hereditary titles and classifications.

[Alanus]

It is a mixed bag. You are talking about a culture in which it was ok to murder live infants because they were female, a culture that encouraged and celebrated the oppression and death of other human beings. A culture that viewed other humans as property, and viewed any conquered people as being sub-human, or deserving of their fate. A culture where soldiers expected to be able to loot, burn, rape, and pillage people they defeated in battle....even if they were fellow romans. A culture that believed chicken entrails predicted the future. Roman "civilization" for all of its "grandeur" was quite barbaric. For gods sake, they watched other human beings being tortured and killed (in gruesome ways) as entertainment.

That said, I also think there is a very fine line to our "civilization" and modern sensibilities that it is all too easy for society to degrade back to "might makes right" and superstition.

Well said. :whistle: Of course, there are still barbarisms in our modern world, but hopefully not "acceptable" as it was in ancient Rome.

[MD]

Isn't all that the point Mark Hygate is trying to make? That while our culture, corresponding morals and the framework around it, has changed drastically in the last 2000 years human nature has not. That if the circumstance are right modern humans will act just like the Romans did.

Even western soldiers have committed various atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade. Today actions like that are fortunately persecuted not accepted, but each incident demonstrates how frighteningly weak civilizations ability to tame the beast in us really is.

How many people believed just before WW2 that such kind of atrocities were unthinkable for modern civilized Europeans and how quickly could Nazi regime change German society to follow their path willingly?

It is a dangerous self deception to just look down on Roman behavior and believe too much in the superiority of modern men until it is too late again.

[Urselius]

And they soused everything they ate in the juice from fermented fish guts!

[Nathan Ross]

Isn't all that the point Mark Hygate is trying to make?

I think he's going further than that. My apologies if I have this wrong, but Mark seems to be suggesting that we can use our own relevant life experiences (in his case, his military background) to fill in the gaps of ancient history, and give us insights unavailable to academic historians tied to evidence-based analysis.

There's something to be said for this - history is not an exact science, but a method we use to try and help us understand the past. Empathy and imagination are necessary aspects of interpretation, and our own experiences shape the way we look at evidence. Otherwise historians would be able to agree about everything - which they clearly do not!

But I'm wary of the idea that convincing theories can rest solely on personal experience or ideas of 'common sense' or modern practice, without any foundation in evidence, either material or documentary. For all the relative scrappiness of our knowledge, we do know enough about the ancient Romans and their army to suggest that there were significant differences between them and us.

[diegis]

Razvan,
Same goes for any 2,000 year old culture whether it be Romans or other. The didn't think or act like you because their world, small similarities aside, was unique and alien to our own.

Hmm, again I must say that some people (not just you) seem to see just that empty part of the glass and ignore the filled one, to say like this.
Yes, in many ways they were very different in the way they saw or do some things (and for many of them I can say this is fortunately, especially slavery thing).
But in other ways they were very similar, in fact we (many modern people) take and use quite few things from them. To see this (and how they think sometime similar to us) look at the Roman Law, that influenced more or less pretty much any law system in "western world" (and not just that but other parts of the world too).
Look just to principles like "everybody is equal before the law" or "everybody is innocent until proven guilty", "everyone have the right to defense", "the accuser should provide the burden of proof" etc. etc., these come from the Romans law.
Two of the main things that shaped the European civilization (even today) were Christianity (spread or/and imposed by Romans) and the Roman law.
So I wont be so extreme to say that they were totally alien to us and thats no way to exist any similarities or influences.

Also plebian doesn't mean poor people. Roman citizens were either patricians (decedents of the original fathers of the city) or plebians (the people, which included everyone else). By the time of Sulla and Caesar the 300-600 man senate was majority plebian. Patrician and plebian do not match rich or poor. They are purely hereditary titles and classifications.

Yes, thank you for clarifications Bryan

[diegis]

Isn't all that the point Mark Hygate is trying to make?

I think he's going further than that. My apologies if I have this wrong, but Mark seems to be suggesting that we can use our own relevant life experiences (in his case, his military background) to fill in the gaps of ancient history, and give us insights unavailable to academic historians tied to evidence-based analysis.

There's something to be said for this - history is not an exact science, but a method we use to try and help us understand the past. Empathy and imagination are necessary aspects of interpretation, and our own experiences shape the way we look at evidence. Otherwise historians would be able to agree about everything - which they clearly do not!

But I'm wary of the idea that convincing theories can rest solely on personal experience or ideas of 'common sense' or modern practice, without any foundation in evidence, either material or documentary. For all the relative scrappiness of our knowledge, we do know enough about the ancient Romans and their army to suggest that there were significant differences between them and us.

Well, there were some significant similarities too. I for one I agree in many parts to what Mark say.
Sure, the differences exist, and that is normal after all this time, but I think too that similarities do exist as well

[Bryan]

Isn't all that the point Mark Hygate is trying to make? That while our culture, corresponding morals and the framework around it, has changed drastically in the last 2000 years human nature has not. That if the circumstance are right modern humans will act just like the Romans did.

Even western soldiers have committed various atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade. Today actions like that are fortunately persecuted not accepted, but each incident demonstrates how frighteningly weak civilizations ability to tame the beast in us really is.

How many people believed just before WW2 that such kind of atrocities were unthinkable for modern civilized Europeans and how quickly could Nazi regime change German society to follow their path willingly?

It is a dangerous self deception to just look down on Roman behavior and believe too much in the superiority of modern men until it is too late again.

Its not about looking down on them from a position of superiority. Its about accepting that they are different from us.

[Bryan]

Razvan,
Same goes for any 2,000 year old culture whether it be Romans or other. The didn't think or act like you because their world, small similarities aside, was unique and alien to our own.

Hmm, again I must say that some people (not just you) seem to see just that empty part of the glass and ignore the filled one, to say like this.
Yes, in many ways they were very different in the way they saw or do some things (and for many of them I can say this is fortunately, especially slavery thing).
But in other ways they were very similar, in fact we (many modern people) take and use quite few things from them. To see this (and how they think sometime similar to us) look at the Roman Law, that influenced more or less pretty much any law system in "western world" (and not just that but other parts of the world too).
Look just to principles like "everybody is equal before the law" or "everybody is innocent until proven guilty", "everyone have the right to defense", "the accuser should provide the burden of proof" etc. etc., these come from the Romans law.
Two of the main things that shaped the European civilization (even today) were Christianity (spread or/and imposed by Romans) and the Roman law.
So I wont be so extreme to say that they were totally alien to us and thats no way to exist any similarities or influences.

You might want to reexamine your stance on the legal origins.
"Equal before the law" is from ancient Athens.
The legal right to defense" also goes back to Ancient Greece, with rhetorical orators and advocates.
"Burden of Proof" was a creation of proving philosophical debates and then it transcended into the legal arena.
Presumption of Innocence goes along with Burden of Proof as a logical philosophical idea, that the accuser holds that "Proof is on he who asserts, not on he that denies" . It was also created in the late Roman period.

While many of the legal tenets evolved in ancient Rome (which lasted well over a thousand year period), so did the fasces with ax (authority to flog and execute at will), as did the concept of ownership of people, the paterfamilia's power to kill or enslave members of his own family, the frequent killing of girl children, debt slavery, genocide, etc.

For those that really want to understand Mark Hygate's argument on how different Romans and modern human societies are, just read his past posts in the varying recent threads. Judging from his posts in this thread alone, I will admit that it would be hard to frame his stance, but in the context of his other posts in other threads it's a lot easier to see where he actually stands on this manner. This whole thread was only created because posters called him on his assertions that Roman centurions of the Republican/Prinicpate era had similar leadership/command/management styles and methods as a former British officer from late 20th century, as well as his nonstop comparisons between ancient optios (whose role and duties in battle and garrison was never truly made clear by sources) and with *Napoleonic and modern platoon sergeants.

Example #1
Example #2
Example #3

There are many other examples. Further, his frequent mentioning of the lack of biological differences in this thread is confusing as it has never once been used as a counter point against his theories. His detractors simply state that his limited military experiences in situations similar to what a Roman centurion or other leader would face is only evidence that his "small unit" leadership methods are the result of modern ideas and did not exist in the ancient world.

Military experience can often lend some experience and an additional point of view on military history subjects, past or present. However, in this case its an example of using military experience as evidence, even when it flies in the face of the contemporary historical evidence and against the military experiences of other people. Not to mention discounting 2,000 years of military cultural evolution.

*Further Note: Platoon Sergeants didn't even exist in the British army during the Napoleonic army.
http://web.science.mq.edu.au/~susanlaw/n...ranks3.htm

[MD]

Its not about looking down on them from a position of superiority. Its about accepting that they are different from us.

True, I don't agree with Mark Hygates methods, but personally I don't believe it is possible at all to determine exactly how "similar" or "different" the Romans as a whole are to us and how it will affect certain things like how the organized their military. Not without much more data and certainly not to a degree to decide any argument with it. Thus I am very skeptical when reading statements like "totally alien". We should neither build nor refute theories on such a judgment alone. It is not about accepting that the Romans are different from us, but about accepting that our knowledge is and will remain limited and we will probably never be able to fully understood why the Romans did or didn't something.

What do we have to know how a "the Romans" thought about something? Some short notes and graffiti, letters from a few individuals scattered throughout the Empire and its history, histories written by men with their own agenda, that wanted to write literature and educate their readers and not just transmit facts.
Very often I have the impression that people simply merge that tidbits of information from several centuries to create an archetypal Roman that never existed.