Historical Comparisons

[Gordian]

Greetings!

 

I recently read, "Rubicon" by Holland. I enjoyed the book but disagreed with some of his comparisons to comtemporary times through the lense of the fall of the republic. Shortly after, I myself started to write a paper using the conflict between Milo and Clodius as a comparison with today's current political climate in America. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I'm in the US military and I'm in the OCS (Officer Candidate School) program. Military history is part of the ciriculum so this topic has again come up. I'd like to hear some opinions from you concering this topic. Is historical comparison worth it? Does history give blue prints you can mimic? Is history something practical you can use for grand strategy, especially militarily?

 

I'm new to posting so please excuse me if this topic has already been done.

 

Thanks!

[Melvadius]

Salve Gordian, welcome to the forum.

 

The topic of historical comparisons does come up here from time to time notably but not exclusively between Ancient Rome and America:

 

A couple of threads on the American comparisons are:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1104

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9138&st=0&p=90317&hl=america&fromsearch=1entry90317

 

I suppose my own opinion tends to be along the line that if we do not take note of history we are liable to keep repeating the same mistakes.

 

Knowing how little note politicians tend to take of historical comparisons this possibly leads to the all too obvious conclusion that under their leadership we will continue to make the same mistakes

[caldrail]

Greetings!

 

I recently read, "Rubicon" by Holland. I enjoyed the book but disagreed with some of his comparisons to comtemporary times through the lense of the fall of the republic. Shortly after, I myself started to write a paper using the conflict between Milo and Clodius as a comparison with today's current political climate in America. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I'm in the US military and I'm in the OCS (Officer Candidate School) program. Military history is part of the ciriculum so this topic has again come up. I'd like to hear some opinions from you concering this topic. Is historical comparison worth it? Does history give blue prints you can mimic? Is history something practical you can use for grand strategy, especially militarily?

 

 

Is historical comparison worthwhile? It can be, provided we learn something from it. The problem I've always noticed with comparisons, and the military sphere is by far the worst offender, is that people assume the world is exactly the same today as it was then, or want it to be essentially the same, because they understand the modern world implicitly and therefore if the Romans were just like us, then understanding would be a breeze. They slot names and numbers into neat constructs that bear more resemblance to the modern day than to anything that happened two thousand years ago.

 

The issue then is context. Whatever aspect of Roman society you want to compare, you must illustrate it with respect to their viewpoint, their culture, and their world in the larger scale. That requires more work and consideration. I've ranted at people endlessly about the Roman military and why they didn't just click their fingers and invent a modern-esque army. That doesn't mean I'm right, but I have given the matter a lot of thought and believe passionately that our assumptions about things Roman distort the lessons we should be learning.

[GhostOfClayton]

I suppose there has to be a distinction between 'learning about history' and 'learning from history'. I just made up that little sound bite to sound cleverer than I am, but bear with me, I'm going somewhere with this.

 

For the puposes of differentiating the two, I see 'learning about history' as doing it for pure intelectual curiosity, and 'learning from history' as having the whole 'not repeating mistakes' business as a primary reason for doing it, in other words influencing behaviours based on outcomes of research.

 

The trouble with 'learning from history' is that at best it has a tendency to be subjective and open to wide interpretation. In other words with no clear cut, black and white scientific result that you can point at and say (for example) "Caesar did this and look what happened to him, so let's not do that!" At worst it is used where the desire to influence behaviour exists in advance, and a spin is put on history, or individual events cherry picked/taken out of context purely to bring about the desired change. There's never a right answer.

 

That being the case, my tendency is towards 'learning about history' because I am a curious fellow (in more ways than one). I'll leave 'learning from history' to the naive, the politicians, the religious nutcases, and the students who are trying to impress the person marking their paper.

Edited February 1, 2011 by GhostOfClayton

[Ursus]

Is history something practical you can use for grand strategy, especially militarily?

 

I think historical examples can be used, generally, to illustrate certain principles of international relations theory. The most immediate that comes to mind is the theory of imperial overstretch. There comes a point in every empire's time when the long term costs of further conquests exceed the long term benefits. (Some people would assign that point in Roman history to the conquest of Britain. 3 legions tied up in a little piece of land, with some tin as their major reward for their efforts). We can look at other fallen empires to see when they turned the corner. And then, perhaps, we might have some insight as to when modern hegemonic powers might become overstretched.

 

But this sort of thing quickly becomes degraded once you get outside a narrow field of impartial analysis by experts. Comparisons to Rome simply become a device of rhetoric from those that want to assign their particular moral schemes to the universe.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Ursus

[Ursus]

To speak more directly to the issue, there is a book out there that is an excellent example of an intelligent interplay between Roman history and real world geopolitical analysis: http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Strategy-Roman-Empire-D/dp/0801821584

 

I read the book. It's quite dry, even for someone who likes international relations theory. But it is a seminal work. And even if it's analysis is flawed at times, it's theories are applicable to the real world. I think the work might even be required reading in higher military circles.

[Gordian]

I've noticed that many try to put modern conventions into the ancients and that's wrong. Also, military strategists obsession with Cannae hasn't been a boon to my line of work; especailly in the 20th century. Think Germany before WWI and the Schlieffen plan.

 

But considering history as completely academic feels empty to me on a personal level. I consider Plutarch to be a great man because he was willing to try to find virtues and vices from great historical figures. In this way, he could inspire people to try to aspire to the virtues of great leaders while tying to avoid their vices. This makes sense to me.

[Kosmo]

Historical comparisons can be useful if you compare similar things and you have a good knowledge of the subject. One example is Moore's Law about the trend in computing hardware. The industrial revolution (or the Enlightenment or the birth of the First Modernity etc) created a rapid change (still continuing) of all aspects of society that makes impossible comparisons of things before and after it. For example a comparison of Soviet and NATO counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan is useful while comparing either with the campaign in the same area by Alexander the Great is nonsensical.

[Guaporense]

Alexander the Great campaign in the area was a consolidation operation, where he consolidated his conquests. This can be compared in the 20th century with Germany's campaign's in Balkans and Greece, in WW2, when they consolidated their territory before trying to invade the Soviet Union. Though these campaigns can be compared to Alexander's campaigns involving the consolidation of Greece and northern territories, before the invasion of the Persian Empire.

[caldrail]

Historical comparisons can be useful if you compare similar things...

That's exactly why comparisons should be viewed with caution. It's like a venn diagram. Put our modern world in a bubble and the roman world in another. See where it crosses over onto common ground. Now what have you left out? Quite a lot as it happens. That's a very myopic way of studying history. Sometimes I have to start on that common ground because I don't know any better. But as comfortable as it is, I want to seek out the boudaries of the Roman bubble, not the bit we want to foist onto the Romans from our own time. The idea that the Romans were essentially the same as us and very modern is an idea that's been very common in recent decades. I think it's responsible for huge distortions in the popular understanding of who the Romans were.

 

...and you have a good knowledge of the subject.

How good? How do you measure your knowledge of the subject? To my mind, understanding the differences is more important and indeed more indicative of good knowledge.