Soldiers and Ghosts: A Review

When you have a hobby, you tend to get cocky about it.  You think about how smart or skilled you are to be pursuing something because you enjoy it and not because you're in school or because it's your job.  If you're not careful, you eventually begin to think that you can't possibly learn anything new about your subject.

I purchased Soldiers and Ghosts with an Amazon Gift Card last year, and I finally got around to reading it, thinking that it would be fun to read a fresh account of Cannae or read Hannibal's life story.  Again.  What I wasn't expecting was a psycho-cultural analysis of the motives behind the tactics of ancient warfare, starting with the early Greeks.  And I certainly wasn't expecting the first battle I read about to have taken place during the Vietnam War.

Spoiler Alert: the Ancient Romans weren't even involved in the Vietnam War for some reason.

It is a common assumption that warfare has always been about practicality and pragmatism.  The Greeks used the phalanx with great success, and we assume that they chose it primarily for its effectiveness.  However, we often forget that the Ancient people lived in a very different world than ours; a world of augury and divination, of mysticism and heavenly conflicts, of invisible forces that haunted their every step.  They did not look at the Olympic Pantheon as a rustic mythological belief system; it was what they believed.  It stands to reason that their motivations went way beyond simple pragmatic strategy.

My first clue to the Romans' lack of pragmatism is that they all seem to be wearing their baseball caps backward.

But J. E. Lendon puts it best when he explains it this way: "These [people of Papua New Guinea] are peoples who fight wars in ways we call ritualized, meaning they allow their beliefs to dictate a mode of fighting less ruthlessly efficient than we could devise for them.  There are other ways, too, in which beliefs draw modern armies away from purely efficient methods of killing: the reluctance, since World War I, of many armies to employ poison gas and the practice of preserving the lives of prisoners.  Such restraints are powerfully reinforced by the scorpion sting of the Golden Rule: soldiers do not want to be gassed themselves, and they want their own surrenders to be accepted.  But such restraints are grounded also in shared belief: the belief that war has rules, however fragile, and that there are appropriate ways of killing and methods of killing too horrible to be used." (pp.3-4, emphasis mine)

Other highlights and insights include:

• "Sometimes the glory of the victor depends not only upon his observed performance, but also on the excellence of the defeated; this is a second, quite separate, mechanism for gaining glory in battle." (p. 26)
• "But the ethos that lay underneath this cooperation [of the phalanx] was only superficially cooperative, for those who fought in the seemingly unheroic phalanx conceived of what they were doing in Homeric terms . . . if grave reliefs were our only evidence we would never imagine that the Greeks fought massed in the phalanx rather than as heroic individuals." (pp.44-45)
• "Amidst the showers of spears and arrows and stones, amidst the running to and fro and confusion and stabbing by surprise, men of high standing would go down, killed anonymously by stray missiles and the spears of low wretches, trampled by horses, or crushed ingloriously by stray chariots.  In the confusion the high deeds of the brave would go unnoticed, along with the cringing of the cowardly." (p. 46)
• "Yet it is not in spear fighting in which the hoplite competes but holding his place in the line, and the courage of holding one's place is perhaps the form of martial behavior whose success in the real world is most in the hands of the warrior and subject to the least external influence." (p. 53)
• "The irony of Thermopylae is that, although the Spartans went to their deaths according to the hoplite code, they did not in their last hours fight entirely as hoplites, bravely holding their ground." (p. 66)
• "Xenophon urges the hiring of foreign mercenary cavalry chiefly to inspire a sense of rivalry in the Athenian cavalry." (p. 103)
• "Macedonian leaders had to fight with their own hands because that is how they commanded the obedience of their soldiers." (P. 137)
• "Soldiers fight well not because they are compelled from above but because they do not want to let down their comrades." (p. 171)
• "For disciplina [Roman Discipline] was not primarily a system of imposed or felt rules to make an unwarlike people place themselves in danger or to do something unnatural to them . . . it is conceived primarily as a brake to overly aggressive behavior." (p. 177)
• "The Roman soldier did not primarily think of himself as part of a team, and he was not treated as such by his officers.  Rather, he regarded his comrades as his competitors in aggressive bravery." (p. 185)
• "The manipular legion was the fruit of compromise resulting from the meeting of an imported method of fighting, the phalanx, with a people whose martial values, whether inherited or new-acquired, made fighting in the phalanx a heroic challenge for them." (p. 190)
• "After a loss a Roman general might be prosecuted for personal cowardice, but not for tactical stupidity." (p. 207)

So, yeah.  I highly recommend reading this book if you're ready to go beyond the surface-level of Ancient-world tactics and strategies to learn about the cultural forces that drove them.  I'm pretty busy with other plans at the moment, but I'll probably have a few blog posts related to the claims in this book coming up in the near future, so look forward to that.

The Evolution of Emperor Worship

As you may have read a few weeks ago, Augustus Caesar was the first Emperor, whose authority was more of a subtle, de facto kind of rule, rather than the flamboyance of his descendants. He was also the first person to introduce the concept of a living divine leader into Roman politics, which had for almost five hundred years avoided deifying their leaders, unlike the Greeks and Egyptians. When Julius Caesar was deified post mortem by a guilty Senate, Augustus wasted no time in adding “son of god” to his list of many titles. As such, people were much more hesitant to go against him, for fear that their anger at his naked power grabbing might be perceived as impiety by the masses who adored him.

This is not to say that the Romans were all Agnostic pragmatists before Augustus Caesar, far from it. Many a popular assembly was disrupted or canceled because some appointed Pontifex claimed ill omens, signs which only seemed to appear when the assembly favored policies which the Senate opposed. Sometimes, this was seen for the crass undemocratic interruption that it was, but other times it succeeded.

Gaius Marius claimed to have found an eagle's nest with seven baby chicks in it – a large number of baby eagles for a single nest. He and his followers claimed that this was a sign from the gods that he was meant to serve seven terms as Consul, something that helped to sway Plebeian support for the unorthodox multiple terms that he served. The people of Rome recognized, for better or worse, that there was a law higher than the Roman codes.

Augustus took things a step further by claiming to be God's son, since God was Julius Caesar. By endowing himself with divine status, confirmed by the Senate's own apotheosis, he set the stage for the later Emperors and the Popes after them to claim infallibility. He also removed a key element to becoming a deity within his culture: dying. He was to his people a living, breathing divine entity, capable of bringing great good to his allies and terrible wrath upon his enemies.

It is really no wonder that this sort of thing got carried way too far by those who came after. It wasn't long before people were required to burn incense to the images of the sitting Emperor in order to enter local marketplaces as far away as Palestine and Asia Minor. But even deification couldn't save some Emperors from disfavor and assassination, as it seems even Roman piety had its limits.

Pax vobiscum

Adequate Aqueducts

In my study of history, it seems that there are at least two kinds of empires: the conquest empire and the sustainable empire. Famous warrior-kings like Alexander the Great forged conquest empires by marching their armies into foreign lands and conquering everything in sight. Alexander's in particular is an impressive conquest empire, but it fell apart as soon as he died, splintering into petty kingdoms ruled over by his former Generals. Sustainable empires, on the other hand, outlast their conquerors and fall into a pattern of subservience and reliance on their master kingdom. Rome had its share of both over the years, but places like Spain, Germany, Asia Minor, Sicily, North Africa, Greece, and regional Italy itself gradually fell into a permanent territorial status.

How does an army win a battle? Tactics. How does a nation win a war? Logistics. How does a country maintain a far-reaching empire? Engineering. Yes, if there's one thing the Romans had a monopoly on, it was practical engineering. Where the Greeks and Egyptians saw religion, the Romans saw potential. They specialized in making mysterious concepts like pi work for both their citizens and their conquered clients. One of their most amazing achievements was the Aqueduct.

In Rome alone, there was probably 500 km of aqueducts, allowing the city to support a million people. Throughout their empire, they regularly built and maintained these massive pipe and stone structures in order to ensure a potable water supply, as well as control over where the local went and who got to drink. When a city rebelled, step one of retaking it was taking the head of the aqueduct and cutting off their supply. Likewise, when Rome was attacked, the first step in defense was deploying the most elite troops to guard the water supply and ensure that a siege would prove too costly to maintain, especially if the attackers could not find a supply of their own.

In order to build a proper aqueduct, the surrounding land needed thorough surveying and measurement. The angles employed to ensure a 'just-right' flow of water were often very subtle, and the slightest overcompensation in the grade would either slow the supply to a trickle or cause an overflow which could lead to a nasty flood.

It is easy to find remains of the aqueducts in many parts of the ancient empire, including Spain and modern-day Turkey. What we see is only a fraction of what existed, and what still exists beneath our feet. Of all the aqueduct and piping laid by the Romans, most was underground and only a small percentage used those famous arches that we see still standing today.

Pax vobiscum

The Centurion's Riddle

Quick: how many soldiers did a centurion command?  If you guessed one hundred, you are dead wrong.  Don't feel bad, though, a lot of people have gotten this wrong for hundreds of years.  A centurion, in the days of the early Republic, commanded about 60 men, or half of a maniple.  Later centurions of the early Imperial Era commanded around 80.  So why the confusion?

Basically, it comes down to a problem of language.  Centum is Latin for one hundred, and it's where we get the terms centimeter, centigrade, century, and cent.  There is a similar word which the Romans used to describe their army divisions: Centuriae.  This word means tribe or group, and literally has almost zero relation to the word centum.  Avid readers will remember this post [link], where we learned about the Comitia Centuriata, which is translated "Tribal Assembly."

Lazy scholarship led to people assuming that centum and centuriae were related when it's clear that their similarity is purely coincidental.  Imagine a future in which the people believe that the ancient English word Career meant being able to drive a Car.

Pax vobiscum

-- On a side note, I will now be posting a little differently - All the days will continue their present themes, but they will be on an every other day/week basis.  So, Technology Tuesday and Theology Thursday will have to wait until next week, while Culture Wednesday and Famous Friday are still on track for this one.  Having babies changes everything

The Promise of Updates to Come

So, having a child to care for is a huge life change, for anyone out there who may be oblivious to reality.  This week has been a whirlwind of feedings, readings, jaundice, rotational shift-sleeping, and general craziness, and as such there is no way I can make up for the remaining lost posts this week.  I apologize.

Next week, I will do my best to start anew and, Lord willing, continue to post regularly.  I thank you for your patience and for your continued readership.

Pax vobiscum