I am starting to design a set of rules to allow the really big Roman Civl War battles to be fought real-time (that way everyone gets to be the good guys and no one has to feel slighted by having to play barbarians). Therefore the basic unit will be a legion. Which primary sources do I need to read to determine how Romans fought between 88 BC and 324 AD? I will re-read Caesar, and Tacitus. I will have to read Casius Dio again (I will wait until I next have root canal work to take my mind off the pain). Which other one do I need to read?
Appian's Civil Wars - translation on Bill Thayer's site (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/home.html) - may be the main one missing from your list. Plus some of Plutarch's Lives - Marius, Sertorius, Caesar, Pompey, Antony.
In the Pharsalus Battleday thread (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1736.0) I also used Frontinus (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Frontinus/Strategemata/home.html)and Lucan's Pharsalia, but extracting anything useful from the last-named is hard work.
Duncan, thank you as always.
Quote from: Tim on October 12, 2018, 07:38:12 PM
I am starting to design a set of rules to allow the really big Roman Civl War battles to be fought real-time (that way everyone gets to be the good guys and no one has to feel slighted by having to play barbarians). Therefore the basic unit will be a legion. Which primary sources do I need to read to determine how Romans fought between 88 BC and 324 AD? I will re-read Caesar, and Tacitus. I will have to read Casius Dio again (I will wait until I next have root canal work to take my mind off the pain). Which other one do I need to read?
I confess I find it curious anyone sees the Romans as the good guys... invade and enslave as basic state policy? Yeah.. top guys.
Quote from: DougM on October 13, 2018, 01:16:10 AM
I confess I find it curious anyone sees the Romans as the good guys... invade and enslave as basic state policy? Yeah.. top guys.
Don't worry Doug - if previous examples of Tim's humour are anything to go by, I think his tongue may be a little in cheek here!
That said, invading and enslaving was pretty par for the course at the time...
Quote from: Tim on October 12, 2018, 07:38:12 PM
I am starting to design a set of rules to allow the really big Roman Civl War battles to be fought real-time (that way everyone gets to be the good guys and no one has to feel slighted by having to play barbarians). Therefore the basic unit will be a legion.
Sounds like a great project, Tim. If you need any playtesters, feel free to get in touch.
Quote from: DougM on October 13, 2018, 01:16:10 AM
I confess I find it curious anyone sees the Romans as the good guys... invade and enslave as basic state policy? Yeah.. top guys.
...but their policy of privatising revenue collection is surely something that all proponents of 'small government' would support.
Quote from: DougM on October 13, 2018, 01:16:10 AM
Quote from: Tim on October 12, 2018, 07:38:12 PM
I am starting to design a set of rules to allow the really big Roman Civl War battles to be fought real-time (that way everyone gets to be the good guys and no one has to feel slighted by having to play barbarians). Therefore the basic unit will be a legion. Which primary sources do I need to read to determine how Romans fought between 88 BC and 324 AD? I will re-read Caesar, and Tacitus. I will have to read Casius Dio again (I will wait until I next have root canal work to take my mind off the pain). Which other one do I need to read?
I confess I find it curious anyone sees the Romans as the good guys... invade and enslave as basic state policy? Yeah.. top guys.
compared to? Because it's the comparison that matters
Quote from: DougM on October 13, 2018, 01:16:10 AM
I confess I find it curious anyone sees the Romans as the good guys... invade and enslave as basic state policy?
Invade, yes.
Enslave? There were slaves, but subjugated people were not enslaved?
I should have been more specific. 10s of thousands were enslaved as normal practice following wars.
Quote from: DougM on October 13, 2018, 01:58:31 PM
I should have been more specific. 10s of thousands were enslaved as normal practice following wars.
yes, the Sassanids carried away Roman citizens to Sasanian provinces like Khuzestan, Asuristan, and Pars. Pretty well everybody did it. Our concept of the rights of the individual weren't even a concept at the time
"These plunderers of the world, after exhausting the land by their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West: the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace." Tacitus Agricola 30
Even the Romans didn't think the Romans were the good guys. :)
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 13, 2018, 03:49:29 PM
Quote from: DougM on October 13, 2018, 01:58:31 PM
I should have been more specific. 10s of thousands were enslaved as normal practice following wars.
yes, the Sassanids carried away Roman citizens to Sasanian provinces like Khuzestan, Asuristan, and Pars. Pretty well everybody did it. Our concept of the rights of the individual weren't even a concept at the time
In this instance, as far as we know, the Sasanians deported prisoners of war and resettled them. Whether they were slaves or not is unknown. When the Romans defeated Gallic and Germanic tribes entire populations of men, women and children were enslaved. No-one comes out of it lily-white, but the Romans were upfront about their use of slavery (for example) as war-booty for the soldiery.
Quote from: DougM on October 14, 2018, 01:23:41 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 13, 2018, 03:49:29 PM
Quote from: DougM on October 13, 2018, 01:58:31 PM
I should have been more specific. 10s of thousands were enslaved as normal practice following wars.
yes, the Sassanids carried away Roman citizens to Sasanian provinces like Khuzestan, Asuristan, and Pars. Pretty well everybody did it. Our concept of the rights of the individual weren't even a concept at the time
In this instance, as far as we know, the Sasanians deported prisoners of war and resettled them. Whether they were slaves or not is unknown. When the Romans defeated Gallic and Germanic tribes entire populations of men, women and children were enslaved. No-one comes out of it lily-white, but the Romans were upfront about their use of slavery (for example) as war-booty for the soldiery.
The Greeks did it. Sack a city, kill all the men, sell of the women and children. The Athenians did it at Melos,(but it was just one of any number of examples.) The Persian forces sacked Miletus, killed all the men, sold off the women and children. You had to pay for the army some how
In Europe for many centuries, if the defenders of a city didn't yield when there was a 'practical breach', the city was given over to the sack.
One reason Rome managed its consistent expansion without uniting the world against it was that when it made a treaty, it generally stuck to that treaty (there was one notable exception regarding Viriathus). This was often not too hard as the Romans usually more or less dictated the treaty in the first place, but their adherence to the letter of the law won them respect among the lesser powers of the Mediteranean world: being a friend of Rome counted for something.
In addition, they became known (prior to 146 BC) for turning up to help an ally and then packing up and going home instead of outstaying their welcome. This was unusual behaviour at the time, and gained them much respect, although a little futurology would have warned such powers that any long-term entanglement with Rome would have dire consequences sooner or later. The Hasmoneans, for example, found a Roman alliance very useful in securing their independence and subsequent prosperity (the endemic Seleucid wars of succession also helped), but by 65 BC the alliance was somewhat threadbare and Pompey dropped in to resolve a succession crisis - and upon resolving it the Roman Empire did not go away. Greece had undergone a similar experience in the period 199-146 BC, a sort of unintentional early adapter to the then new world order.
Eventually, the western world was left with Rome, Parthia and various barbarian tribes. The Parthians and barbarian tribes tended to compare unfavourably with Rome in the 'liberal dilettante' test, which is essentially how well a modern educated individual would survive in any of the cultures. Since most of us are educated modern individuals, assimilation into Roman society would involve less effort and feel easier than attempting to hold one's own among Parthians or barbarians. (Barbarian society might hold an appeal for some until the subject of medical care emerges.)
Hence from our perspective, and considering the western world in the period 88BC to AD 324, it is not too hardf ot view the Romans as the 'good guys' simply because they share more of our outlook and societal norms (like bathing and literacy). :)
Patrick, I know that it runs counter to my original assertion but as was said to me many years ago when first seriously studying the Romans - the victors tend to write the history. It is possible that life outside the Empire was an anarchists collective run on Athenian Democratic lines with free love in the land of milk and honey but the Roman's don't write it like that. Given how many people outside the Empire wanted to get in I suspect being protected by Roman military power and paying Roman taxes must have been preferable to the alternative but I can't prove that.
Tim
I suspect that the English speaking world has picked up on the Romans because of the 'enlightenment' and the 'grand tour.' They brought the wealthy young of the English speaking world into contact with the world of Rome in a real way. Previously 'Rome' had been the Pope and all that entailed.
(Edinburgh calling itself the 'Athens of the North' is perhaps something from the tail end of the same period)
Entwined in this lot is the fact that Caesar, because of the quality of his writing, tended to get used a lot in the Public Schools and the Third British Empire found in their version of Rome an ideological underpinning
Quote from: Tim on October 14, 2018, 06:48:33 PM
Patrick, I know that it runs counter to my original assertion but as was said to me many years ago when first seriously studying the Romans - the victors tend to write the history. It is possible that life outside the Empire was an anarchists collective run on Athenian Democratic lines with free love in the land of milk and honey but the Roman's don't write it like that. Given how many people outside the Empire wanted to get in I suspect being protected by Roman military power and paying Roman taxes must have been preferable to the alternative but I can't prove that.
Tim
On the one hand, we have peoples keen to join the Roman sphere of influence because it gets them help dealing with difficult neighbours, while on the other we have people like the Cilicians and Illyrians who remain pestiferous piratical nuisances and end up being incorporated by force.
The experience of Britannia is interesting because we can see it unfold through multiple, albeit mainly non-British, eyes. Caesar pops over with high hopes of conquest but goes back to Gaul having been told thanks, but no thanks. Caligula launches his campaign which gets as far as defeating Neptune. It would be intriguing to have a view of Rome through British eyes around that point. Then Claudius decides upon what seems esentially to have been a prestige conquest, and like it or not, Britain is gradually subdued, part by alliance and part by outright conquest. This is never the nice part.
Then we get the reign of Nero, and the British allies of Rome find out that being part of the Empire can be bad as well as good. The result is the Iceni revolt and a somewhat more cautious Imperial approach in future. Enter the age of the Antonines and Britain, like the rest of the Empire, would seem to have few if any complaints. This is when the Romans arer having a definite 'good guy' period: the alternatives are arrogant and arbitrary Parthians or grubby barbarians who do dreadful things to houses, sheep and women.
Then comes the 3rd-4th-5th century AD period, characterised by civil wars and barbarian invasions. A good opportunity to Britain to throw off the yoke of Rome, and under Carausius this is exactly what happens, but the Britons retain the Roman cultural baby while throwing out the Imperial bathwater. Constantius Chlorus brings Britannia back into the fold, and for the next century or so Britain is making occasional emperors who go on to conquer the Empire - or as much of it as they can reach, depending upon what happens when the said imperial hopeful gets to Italy.
The end result of this process is that Britain is effectively abandoned by the Empire - and the inhabitants are last heard pleading with the representative of Imperial power in Gaul for assistance against barbarian incursions.
Britannia had a rocky road, during which the Empire was loved, hated and became a habit, but subsequent Brythonic (or Brittonic) tradition tended to depict the Saxons, not the Romans, as the 'bad guys'.
[
Edit: fixed typos]
Rome's influence on the modern West and thus the modern world is much much deeper than the grand tour or reading Caesarvat school.mIt goes back to the Renaissance at a point where European thinkers were looking to enlargebtheir knowledge and researching into the models that Greek and Roman literature provided.
I suggest that in the Middle Ages Vegetius was published and read, but without a deep effect on the way that war was organised, perhaps the strategic advice was understood, but the times and particularly the importance of drill and training and having homogeneous units of permanently embodied infantry was ignored, or rather not grasped. However, over a period of a century or so mainly after 1500 the information and data on Rome became absorbed and actually applied. European leaders, such as the Nassaus applied the lessons of discipline and the drilling of small mobile units combining missile and shock and crucially the same throughout the army so that a general coukd take any group of units, move it to a position and know that it would be able to fulfil a full tactical function...an enormous advantage of a Roman army. over say a Hellenistic army .
This fundamental reorganisation of Western armies along Roman lines then spread into the ways that European society operated an it became more ordered , more disciplined and much more productive. Let us nit forget tgat Rome was hugely successful and, once education spread from the XVth century onwatds Roman ( and GreeK) models became available tona large section of the popukace. Of course its also about technical developments and allowance of the carrying out and publication of scientific enquiry, geography,ntrade etc, but the Roman contribution to the rise of the West is huge. When Westerners decided to go look there before them was this huge bidy of knowledge to be researched and understood, a huge treasury of examples. We share many things with the Romans previsely because we learned it from them!
Roy