Roman Civil War sources

[Tim]

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?

[Duncan Head]

Appian's Civil Wars - translation on Bill Thayer's site - 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 I also used Frontinus and Lucan's Pharsalia, but extracting anything useful from the last-named is hard work.

[Tim]

Duncan, thank you as always.

[DougM]

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.

[Prufrock]

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...

[Prufrock]

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.

[Nick Harbud]

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. 

[Jim Webster]

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

[Dangun]

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?

[DougM]

I should have been more specific. 10s of thousands were enslaved as normal practice following wars.

[Jim Webster]

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

[RichT]

"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. 

[DougM]

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.   

[Jim Webster]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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).