Roman vs. American COIN ops

[marct]

As to history, I believe the human dynamics of populaces and their governances is timeless. The facts change, the dynamics stay the same. Its a matter of degree and perception.

I agree. The facts do change, and I see a lot of historical comparison trying to directly relate the facts of Roman/ Vietnam/ Iraq etc to another parallel. If history informs dynamics, theory or understanding, then that understanding will probably be more robust and relevant.

America is not Rome and Roman facts do not apply to America as a direct import - they do, however, have salient relevance to the conduct of politics and war.

Well, you know me, Bob, so I'll dispense with the comment that "fact" comes from "factum; made or constructed" (guess I didn't dispense with it, eh ?).

Content, context and situation change, but if we want to draw comparisons between Rome and the US, then it's best to do it on as close a basis as possible. Rome is much closer to the US than many people now want to believe, including the "external" governance structures. Outside of language games ("empire" comes from "imperium" which actually translates as "sphere of influence", not "empire" in the autocratic sense), the entirity of the H&M campaign concept, plus all the disaster relief, etc., use fo troops, actually fits in with how Rome used their legions to construct an infrastructure that increased the dependency of "conquered" areas on the core.

Basically, I do agree with you, Bob, that the dynamics remain the same, although the specifics and context change.

[OfTheTroops]

Do I read you all correctly?

So Rome's empire resulted from a unified "total war" political will built on manifest destiny and Perseverance?

America's political will is fractured or has a foundation in at least two houses as described in the ariculate Rhodes analysis?

We probably are conducting FID but it seem to be more probably is less. Whats the alternative? Occupation, colonization, punish the innocent and the guilty in a country by leaving it destroyed, genocide.....FID under the guise of COIN and Stability and Reconstruction satisfies the political will and leaves USA to believe we are as great as we think we are. As my insightful interpreter asked "what gives the US the right to do these things (Iraq Afghanistan)?"

[Bob's World]

Do I read you all correctly?

So Rome's empire resulted from a unified "total war" political will built on manifest destiny and Perseverance?

America's political will is fractured or has a foundation in at least two houses as described in the ariculate Rhodes analysis?

We probably are conducting FID but it seem to be more probably is less. Whats the alternative? Occupation, colonization, punish the innocent and the guilty in a country by leaving it destroyed, genocide.....FID under the guise of COIN and Stability and Reconstruction satisfies the political will and leaves USA to believe we are as great as we think we are. As my insightful interpreter asked "what gives the US the right to do these things (Iraq Afghanistan)?"

Nor is it about Democrat and Republican. Plenty on both sides of the aisle to support either position. The fracture is between who we collectively see ourselves as as a Nation in terms of our relations with others and how we actually engage others and the true effects and consequences of that form of engagement in this era of growing popular empowerment.

As to what gives us the "right"; well, it is our might, plain and simple.

As to what motivates our actions; I'd chalk that up to fear and ignorance. We fear what would happen if we didn't, and we haven't figured out a smarter way to address those same fears. We need to though, because what we are seeing, as others have learned before us, is that what once may have been a good "cure" can kill one over time if abused it or if the conditions change. Good bit of both of those going on, IMO.

[Chris jM]

As to what motivates our actions; I'd chalk that up to fear and ignorance. We fear what would happen if we didn't, and we haven't figured out a smarter way to address those same fears. We need to though, because what we are seeing, as others have learned before us, is that what once may have been a good "cure" can kill one over time if abused it or if the conditions change. Good bit of both of those going on, IMO.

Fear yes, but ignorance? Aren't you being a little harsh on your countrymen? Ignorance may lead to fear, but does ignorance itself actually drive your nation's actions?

I'd prefer to opt for Thucydides' trinity of fear, honour and interest being the driving factors behind any human undertaking.

[Chris jM]

Content, context and situation change, but if we want to draw comparisons between Rome and the US, then it's best to do it on as close a basis as possible. Rome is much closer to the US than many people now want to believe, including the "external" governance structures.

Of course, if one is to draw comparisons between two entities then doing so with detail is important.

I don't want to appear overly critical of the points being raised because I am in agreement with the majority of what you (and Bob's World) are saying.

I still hold onto my view that it is better to inform and shape an understanding of history as theory rather than identify historical detail as an end in itself, however the difference in my own head is nearing the point of self-defeating semantics... I may differ on the 'best practice' of classical/ historical comparison, but I would never write off any comparison as being needless or ineffective. Disclaimers and caveats need to accompany every form of history, even if it is only down to the fact that we ourselves are observing it from an imperfect perspective given our own modern bias.

Also, thanks marct for the small point of wisdom on connecting 'empire' with 'sphere of influence'. That is something I did not know, and will now blatantly use to impress/ fool those around me with my knowledge of latin

[marct]

Hi Chris,

I still hold onto my view that it is better to inform and shape an understanding of history as theory rather than identify historical detail as an end in itself, however the difference in my own head is nearing the point of self-defeating semantics...

Well, I would say that at an epistemological level, how we theorize history says more about us than it does about "history" per se. Coming from that, the importance of details, what type, how many, selection criteria, etc., shifts. Then again, I've been pretty heavily influenced by Carlo Ginzburg (see here) which shouldn't be too surprising since he took Anthro methods and applied them to history .

"self-defeating semantics". Now you've hit on a soap box of mine (I can hear Wilf groaning ). This is where selection criteria become crucial - what meaning are you trying to uncover in historical research? When does it come to be self-defeating? Can we learn anything now based on that?

I may differ on the 'best practice' of classical/ historical comparison, but I would never write off any comparison as being needless or ineffective. Disclaimers and caveats need to accompany every form of history, even if it is only down to the fact that we ourselves are observing it from an imperfect perspective given our own modern bias.

Definitely! There's a neat principle I use called Ginzburg's Razor - a good discussion on it is in the intro to this book. Basically, he argues that between competing hypotheses, the one that requires the least additional number of hypotheses is the most plausible (not "probable", not "true" - he's using abductive logic). It's a good principle to keep in mind if, at the same time, we also remember that as a species we have pretty much exactly the same brains as every other human throughout recorded history (in terms of potentialities).

Also, thanks marct for the small point of wisdom on connecting 'empire' with 'sphere of influence'. That is something I did not know, and will now blatantly use to impress/ fool those around me with my knowledge of latin

LOL - have fun, but point out that the word itself was stolen from the Greek (not Latin). The Romans were almost as kleptomoniacal as the English when it comes to grabbing neat words .

Cheers,

Marc

[William F. Owen]

Well, I would say that at an epistemological level, how we theorize history says more about us than it does about "history" per se. Coming from that, the importance of details, what type, how many, selection criteria, etc., shifts.

I would hold to idea that only by learning from history, can we develop theory to inform current and near future practice. - and I restrict this to military history. - because we simply have no other body of evidence, than history.

Fact is, most military history is merely entertaining narrative. That which isn't is mostly trend-spotting garbage, in that it seeks to find proof to support pet-rock theories. We have yet to usefully re-develop an approach to military history which seeks to usefully inform.

"self-defeating semantics". Now you've hit on a soap box of mine (I can hear Wilf groaning ). This is where selection criteria become crucial - what meaning are you trying to uncover in historical research? When does it come to be self-defeating? Can we learn anything now based on that?

Beyond groaning, I would also submit that if you do not have a language that describes the events you are studying, then you are never going to understand them, because words have meaning and "meaning is understanding." Meaning should focus on clarity and simplicity.

[Steve Blair]

We have yet to usefully re-develop an approach to military history which seeks to usefully inform.

And that's possibly because everyone seems to have a different "spin" on both useful and inform....

Seriously, history is more of an objective art than a subjective science, and will most likely remain so due to the involvement of humans in history. I'd actually say that it's more important to teach folks how to read and comprehend history (both good and bad types) so that they can use that knowledge base to inform their own history selections and build their own theoretical base. Learning to understand and recognize bias helps one separate the wheat from the chaff...and that's a skill that seems to be seldom taught these days. It can also help one mine nuggets of great information from sources that might otherwise not be considered.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

I would hold to idea that only by learning from history, can we develop theory to inform current and near future practice. - and I restrict this to military history. - because we simply have no other body of evidence, than history.

I would certainly agree that we can "learn" from history, and I wasn't trying to argue that we couldn't . At the same time, we are stuck in the position of not being able to experience it, so what we learn will be conditioned by our current interests, available data, methods, etc.

Also, I certainly wouldn't limit it to military history. Let me toss out an example of why. First, the very concept of "military" as separate from, say, "political" history is, IMO, silly if for no other reason, and there are other reasons, than that not all cultures separate the two: think classical Greek city states as an example. My own personal bias would be to integrate as much history, both by area and by function, as possible and, at the same time, require that people read mythology and fiction as well.

Fact is, most military history is merely entertaining narrative. That which isn't is mostly trend-spotting garbage, in that it seeks to find proof to support pet-rock theories. We have yet to usefully re-develop an approach to military history which seeks to usefully inform.

Hmmm, again I'm not quite sure I agree with you. What about the technological histories of warfare? Agreed, they are still focused on a present requirement, but I don't think that that is escapable, at least if you want to get funded for it .

Also, I wouldn't be too sure that studying "entertaining narratives" isn't a good idea. There is some pretty good, indicative evidence that shows that people will, either consciously or sub-consciously, model their identitites and actions after narrative figures.

Beyond groaning, I would also submit that if you do not have a language that describes the events you are studying, then you are never going to understand them, because words have meaning and "meaning is understanding." Meaning should focus on clarity and simplicity.

Absolutely! It's one of the reasons I agree with you and Bob that we aren't doing COIN in Afghanistan.

[William F. Owen]

Also, I certainly wouldn't limit it to military history. Let me toss out an example of why. First, the very concept of "military" as separate from, say, "political" history is, IMO, silly if for no other reason, and there are other reasons, than that not all cultures separate the two: think classical Greek city states as an example.

Concur. I merely limited it to Military History in terms of my criticism. I am very much taken by Colin Gray's approach to "Strategic History," which causes me to ask where is the "tactical history?" - obviously there are some excellent tactical historians like Rory Muir and Paddy Griffith, but they are very rare compared to the "narrators."

Also, I wouldn't be too sure that studying "entertaining narratives" isn't a good idea. There is some pretty good, indicative evidence that shows that people will, either consciously or sub-consciously, model their identitites and actions after narrative figures.

....so we end up with various folks thinking they are, or wanting to identify others as T.E. Lawrence? OK. Is this useful?

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Concur. I merely limited it to Military History in terms of my criticism. I am very much taken by Colin Gray's approach to "Strategic History," which causes me to ask where is the "tactical history?" - obviously there are some excellent tactical historians like Rory Muir and Paddy Griffith, but they are very rare compared to the "narrators."

Hmmm, good point. Maybe it's time someone tried to apply the principles of microhistory to "tactical history".

....so we end up with various folks thinking they are, or wanting to identify others as T.E. Lawrence? OK. Is this useful?

Yup - especially if it is our opponents who are doing it !

More seriously, figuring out what the various narrative roles are allow us to (potentially) control for biases both within our own groups and with our opponents. It certainly would not give us tactically useful information, but it would give us strategically useful information.

Anyway, gotta run off to a meeting......

Cheers,

Marc

[Xenophon67]

Clearly there is a weakness when one tries to continually 'teach' by analogy.

The risk of oversimplification is too great - and then all that can be produced is a sweeping, thesis-driven conclusion. Which too easily satisfies too many people.

Indeed the very prospect of 21st century Americans being able to fully comprehend the intricacies of Roman culture and psyche would be difficult, at best. The facts/details.....well the Roman historical record is incomplete, therefore would not be able to make a point-by-point comparative analysis.

Then again - we produce scores of battle analyses, we encourage our people to read about the "Great Captains" - so there has got to be some value in analogy.

Napoleon's sixteen months of intensive study seemed to bridge the gap of experience he never accumulated, thus leading to 64 victories.
Patton felt as if 'he was there' and seemed to fully embrace the stories he heard read to him.

[Ron Humphrey]

oops, meant ages

Seriously all the points brought out during these discussions always lead me to step back and try to see what I may be too close to see in how I perceive those actions and teachings of those around me, let alone how those perceptions tend to shape approaches to life and learning.

From what I have studied I'd have to agree with Marc in that we probably reflect the Roman's more than we might be comfortable with, does however add to those things which we might be able to learn from some of the histories available.

Clearly there is a weakness when one tries to continually 'teach' by analogy.

The risk of oversimplification is too great - and then all that can be produced is a sweeping, thesis-driven conclusion. Which too easily satisfies too many people.

Indeed the very prospect of 21st century Americans being able to fully comprehend the intricacies of Roman culture and psyche would be difficult, at best. The facts/details.....well the Roman historical record is incomplete, therefore would not be able to make a point-by-point comparative analysis.

Then again - we produce scores of battle analyses, we encourage our people to read about the "Great Captains" - so there has got to be some value in analogy.

Regarding over-simplification while I can see the truth in your statement is it not still a fact that quite often in large organizations or societies it may require a pretty simple approach just to try getting everyone on the same page. Goal being that even if their on the "wrong" page good leaders should be able to direct them more to where they need them since their at least starting on the same page together.

Of course you knew I'd have to try using an extreme oversimplification to counter

Napoleon's sixteen months of intensive study seemed to bridge the gap of experience he never accumulated, thus leading to 64 victories.
Patton felt as if 'he was there' and seemed to fully embrace the stories he heard read to him.

There are always those special few who for some reason or another are able to do that. Guess we just have to hope they find there way into the right places at the right time. And of course (since hope isn't a method) its probably a good idea to get those education/training issues you've all been talking about fixed so theres a greater likelihood you actually find them in time to get them where they need to be.

Prob doesn't hurt to be lucky occasionally either.

[Bob's World]

Simple is always better than complex; but that is not to be confused with simplistic.

"E=MC2" is simple, but it is far from simplistic.

A great deal of complex programs for waging and measuring progress in insurgency are rooted in very simplistic understandings of what the true nature of the problem is that they are attempting to address. This actually feeds the complexity of the programs built upon them.

Simple is good. Simplistic is bad. Wisdom is being able to identify the difference between the two.

[marct]

Hi Guys,

Clearly there is a weakness when one tries to continually 'teach' by analogy.

The risk of oversimplification is too great - and then all that can be produced is a sweeping, thesis-driven conclusion. Which too easily satisfies too many people.

Regarding over-simplification while I can see the truth in your statement is it not still a fact that quite often in large organizations or societies it may require a pretty simple approach just to try getting everyone on the same page. Goal being that even if their on the "wrong" page good leaders should be able to direct them more to where they need them since their at least starting on the same page together.

Years ago, I came to the conclusion that all teaching is a form of communications. It either attempts to match a signal with a receiver in terms of coding / decoding (analogy, metaphor, common ground, etc.), or it attempts to "program" the coding systems in use (e.g. to formally establish a common ground, including specialized languages). One of the implications of this insight (or "brain fart" if you will ) is that the greater number of people (or variance amongst them) you are trying to communicate with, the "simpler" you have to make your message.

Simple is good. Simplistic is bad. Wisdom is being able to identify the difference between the two.

Now this I really like, Bob ! It reminds me of

I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short (Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte)~Blaise Pascal, Lettres Provinciales (1656-1657), no. 16.

To my mind, the crucial component in the Pascal quote is the association of time with simplification of a message. Not making the message "simplistic" but, rather, "simple" takes time and this, I believe, is where our (species) use of analogy, metaphor, etc. come in, especially if it can be clarified via what we might call "paradoxical compaction". On the latter, think koan or apparent paradox as a way or recoding people's perceptions towards a less cluttered "understanding".

[Firn]

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler

Pascal's line shows that one may have to make a (great) effort to achieve this goal.


Firn

[wm]

Also, thanks marct for the small point of wisdom on connecting 'empire' with 'sphere of influence'. That is something I did not know, and will now blatantly use to impress/ fool those around me with my knowledge of latin

I submit that we should make clear the distinction between imperium and regnum. Imperium is externally granted power while regnum is inherited power. Imperium also originally denoted military power. When Rome rid itself of kings, it also rid itself of regnum as the source of magisterial power and imperium as the source of a magistrate's power replaced regnum. I suspect this is connected to what Bob's World likes to post about legitimacy of government. It should not be confused with auctoritas, which we tend to translate as authority, but for the Romans meant something more like prestige. Imperium is a class of potestas, which is coercive power, while auctoritas is better understood as persuasive or charismatic power. The de jure/de facto distinction also helps make sense of the difference between potestas/imperium and auctoritas.

If one want to extend this, then one could discourse on the symbols of imperium. A consul, dictator, praetor, magister equitum, or curule aedile was invested with the imperium--that is during a ceremony, they received their baton and their curule plus their fasces-carrying escort, the lictors. Different levels of magistrate received different levels of imperium, by the way (and that was signified by the number of lictors who accompanied them). Think of the passing of the guidon/flag that occurs during a US Army change of command ceremony or the assumption of command letter one executes--the latter requires the incoming commander to cite the authority (potestas, not auctoritas) for assuming command. In a modern US military context, having imperium might be likened to having UCMJ authority: depending on your rank/position you have different punishment and convening powers--CG/FG Article 15; Summary, Special, BCD Special, and General Courts.

For what it is worth, the phrase "seat of power" is likely derived from the curule--the folding chair upon which those invested with imperium sat. And, the term prince derives fron Princeps, or "first citizen,"
first applied to Caesar Augustus (Octavian).

[marct]

Hi WM,

I submit that we should make clear the distinction between imperium and regnum. Imperium is externally granted power while regnum is inherited power. Imperium also originally denoted military power. When Rome rid itself of kings, it also rid itself of regnum as the source of magisterial power and imperium as the source of a magistrate's power replaced regnum. I suspect this is connected to what Bob's World likes to post about legitimacy of government. It should not be confused with auctoritas, which we tend to translate as authority, but for the Romans meant something more like prestige. Imperium is a class of potestas, which is coercive power, while auctoritas is better understood as persuasive or charismatic power. The de jure/de facto distinction also helps make sense of the difference between potestas/imperium and auctoritas.

Excellent points and, while we are nit-picking on translations, it is important to note that the "external" power varies slightly between the Latin and Greek, as well as the context of usage. Regnum is, as a concept, pretty far away from many modern, western ones, but has the connotation as well as denotation of "ruling" by "right" held within the individual. There are some interesting potential applications of it, as a concept, to the self-conceptualizations of people like Bernie Madoff....

You are quite correct that Imperium is a (sub)class of potestas, although I would have translated potestas as "potential power", rather than coercive power.

If one want to extend this, then one could discourse on the symbols of imperium. A consul, dictator, praetor, magister equitum, or curule aedile was invested with the imperium--that is during a ceremony, they received their baton and their curule plus their fasces-carrying escort, the lictors. Different levels of magistrate received different levels of imperium, by the way (and that was signified by the number of lictors who accompanied them). Think of the passing of the guidon/flag that occurs during a US Army change of command ceremony or the assumption of command letter one executes--the latter requires the incoming commander to cite the authority (potestas, not auctoritas) for assuming command. In a modern US military context, having imperium might be likened to having UCMJ authority: depending on your rank/position you have different punishment and convening powers--CG/FG Article 15; Summary, Special, BCD Special, and General Courts.

Yup, and that's a pretty good analogy. Where it starts to get truly interesting, IMHO, is when we look at it outside of its particular cultural context to how others perceived it and reacted to it.

[wm]

Regnum is, as a concept, pretty far away from many modern, western ones, but has the connotation as well as denotation of "ruling" by "right" held within the individual. There are some interesting potential applications of it, as a concept, to the self-conceptualizations of people like Bernie Madoff....

I'd extend that well beyond the self-concepts of serious scofflaws like Madoff. I think the whole Western way of thinking about natural rights has its roots in the sense of regnum--I am naturally endowed with a certain power to make cklaims against others just because I happen to be a human being. Lots of other cultural traditions (like Confucianisme.g., have different perspectives

Where it starts to get truly interesting, IMHO, is when we look at it outside of its particular cultural context to how others perceived it and reacted to it.

Concur, as I hope my remark above makes clear.

[marct]

I'd extend that well beyond the self-concepts of serious scofflaws like Madoff. I think the whole Western way of thinking about natural rights has its roots in the sense of regnum--I am naturally endowed with a certain power to make cklaims against others just because I happen to be a human being. Lots of other cultural traditions (like Confucianisme.g., have different perspectives

Sure, I would too; I was just trying to think of a decent, modern (idiotic ) example of the inappropriate application of the concept. I'm going to have to think about the idea that it's the basis of natural rights. My gut reaction is that it might be, but only if you include a major dose of Christian (Augustinian) thinking as well.

Originally Posted by marct
Where it starts to get truly interesting, IMHO, is when we look at it outside of its particular cultural context to how others perceived it and reacted to it.

Concur, as I hope my remark above makes clear.

Hmm, not quite . I was thinking more along the lines not so much of other cultures perspectives but, rather, how they viewed the Western perspective in action as it were.