Status of Ancient Military History; Work, Research & Controversies

[Virgil61]

An interesting overview of ancient military history in academia from a 1999 issue of the Journal of Military History written by Victor David Hanson. Dated but still some good discussion. He's a Stanford trained Fresno State (of all places) professor of their classics department. He's without a doubt the most famous living historian of ancient warfare, at least in the U.S. His (very conservative) political writings in National Review account for much of it. Still I think any historian of ancient warfare should at least be aware of his writings. He has a lot to say on the interplay between ancient warfare and culture in the Greek states which he'd claim has had a major influence on the way the West has waged war since then (from the Roman to modern times). Whether you agree or not his histories are an interesting read.

 

Here are some excerpts from his article circa 1991. The Status of Ancient Military History: Traditional Work, Recent Research, and On-going Controversies (FULL ARTICLE HERE).

Victor Davis Hanson

The Journal of Military History

Vol. 63, Iss. 2 I. General

 

FORMAL study of Greek and Roman warfare in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was mostly the domain of pragmatic German academics and officers, who concentrated on broad questions of tactics and strategy, arguing over purely military or political issues often in direct reference to their own experiences and the general challenges of the contemporary German army. The studies of Delbruck, Kromayer and Veith, Bauer, and Kochly and Rustow have now been almost entirely superseded by the work of modern English, American, and French classical scholars who have integrated ancient war with larger economic and social interests arising from recent archaeological and epigraphical discoveries, if at times enhanced by comparative analyses from the social sciences.

 

This trend, while generally positive, has not been altogether without problems. Given the changing nature of war in the technological age, the general end of conscription in most European countries and America, and the growing material and ideological distance between soldiers and professors, it is unlikely in our lifetime that we shall see another generation of ancient military historians-as represented, for example, by N. G. L. Hammond or W. K. Pritchett-whose military service lent firsthand, common sense to their scholarship. Ancient military history in that sense is no different from general military history.

 

...

 

No comparable scholarly study exists for Roman warfare-not surprising if we remember that there is a millennium of history from the early Republic to the end of Empire, in a geographic area ranging from Scotland to the Middle East, and Germany to North Africa. Thousands of archaeological sites are published in over a dozen modern European languages; hundreds of thousands of inscriptions and coins and a vast corpus of Greek and Latin literature have still not been adequately surveyed, much less incorporated into general scholarly histories. Roman military history is simply much more difficult to master in any comprehensive sense than that of the Greeks. Perhaps the best place to start to become acquainted with the primary sources are the summaries of E. Birley, The Roman Army: Papers, 1929-86 (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben,1988); J. Gilliam, Roman Army Papers (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1986); and M. Speidel's superb ongoing Roman Army Studies, vols. 1-2 (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1984-92).

 

 

For the Roman Republic, there are now more recent introductory books that supplement F. E. Adcock's The Roman Art of War under the Republic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1940), and H. M. D. Parker's The Roman Legions, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). While there are differing approaches in L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes and Noble, 1984) and J. Harmand, L'Armee et le soldat a Rome de 107 e 50 avant notre ere (Paris: A. J. Picard et Cie, 1967), both take up the same theme of the gradual professionalization of the legions as public armies became imperial standing forces. Keppie has an especially useful and well-organized bibliography. The nineteenth-century thesis that the growth of the Empire and a professional army evolved into an ever more insidious relationship-more annexed territory demanded more professional troops, who required more pay and thus more taxation on ever more territory-may have been shown at times to be overly simplistic, but its general truth has still not really been questioned.

 

For the warring of the Empire itself, inexpensive versions of older editions-some revised, some not-have now appeared; see, for example, G. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army, 3d ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998) and G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (London: Thames & Hudson, 1983). Both cover the main issues of armament, pay, tactics, strategy, and the political ramifications of professional troops, if giving us less information on how the legions actually fought. A still useful and very readable survey for the general reader is M. Grant's The Army of the Caesars (New York: Scribner, 1974), which emphasizes the great cost of the imperial legions. A similar introductory, more recent account with wonderful illustrations of a variety of Roman military practices is Y Le Bohec, The Imperial Roman Army (London: Batsford, 1994). The organization per se of the legions is treated more from an archaeological point of view by M. Junklemann, Die Legionem des Augustus (Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1991).

 

All these volumes-despite the titles-share a similar emphasis on military organization, logistics, armament, tactics, and strategy, with less concern about the actual conditions of battle. For the general reader interested in a more battle-oriented approach, John Keegan is currently editing a multivolume history of warfare, which seeks to redirect emphasis to the soldiers in the ranks. Books in that series on Greece (V. Hanson) and Rome (A. Goldsworthy) are now in press and will appear in 1999. There are four chapters devoted to ancient warfare with plentiful illustrations (three chapters by V. Hanson from Mycenae to the third century A.D., one by B. Bachrach from 300 A.D. onward) in Geoffrey Parker's edited Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). K. Raaflaub and N. Rosenstein have edited a forthcoming collection of articles on war before the industrial revolution in a number of different cultures (War and Society [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19991), which emphasizes cultural commonalties about conflict, without unduly emphasizing the lethality of Western warfare.

 

 

LINK to full article.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Virgil61

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Indeed VDH is a great name in ancient greek warfare and his research on hoplite battle and, more crucially, on the real impact of pillaging on a mediterranean agricultural society (including experiments on his own farm's olive trees which he tried to set afire and chop down) have been milestone in the discipline. Since around 9/11/01 though he became more and more politicaly active and his analisys more and more biaised by his political thinking.

[Virgil61]

. Since around 9/11/01 though he became more and more politicaly active and his analisys more and more biaised by his political thinking.

 

I've noticed that and its really a shame, I admit I don't care for his politics. Some of the political tit-for-tat battles he's had have been exceptionally nasty. I like his argument that the military history in general lacks those with military experience (as a veteran with a history degree of course I'm biased) anymore but glad he realizes that others bring something to the table as well.

 

If nothing else I recommend the article for his mentions of whom he considers sound authors and their writings on ancient military history.

[caldrail]

I like his argument that the military history in general lacks those with military experience

I understand your point but strictly speaking that experience is only valid for the period the historian fought in. Also, it would tend to colour his opinions toward periods which don't necessarily conform to the psychology, methodology, and organisational emphasis he is familiar with. There's far too much scope for taking things out of context, especially now that the widespread use of the internet allows some extraordinary myths to be spawned and disseminated.

 

In fact, military experience is not a guarantee of historical authority. How can anyone know exactly what the Roman legions were actually like unless they served in them? The Romans tell us various things, but notice how easily their writings are conveniently ignored if someone is constructing a comparative model with their own experience? The magic word is context - something soldiers are never too hot on.

[Melvadius]

The magic word is context.

 

I'm glad to see you agreeing on the point that 'context' is important, which neatly supports Virgil61's pointing up that everyone may have something to bring to a discussion.

[Virgil61]

The magic word is context.

 

I'm glad to see you agreeing on the point that 'context' is important, which neatly supports Virgil61's pointing up that everyone may have something to bring to a discussion.

 

This isn't our first rodeo on this issue.

 

In context this essay was posted in the academia forum because it's about an academic writing on ancient military history. Hansen's lament on the lack of historians or classicists with military backgrounds is specific in that it concerns academia not internet forums vis-a-vis ancient military history. It's about bringing a particular point of view that contributes a piece to the puzzle. Trained historians and classicist always bring in something they have knowledge of in their analysis (ex; Hansen's expertise as a farmer influencing his writing).

 

If one is speaking about poster's on an internet forum then it's hard to disagree with Caldrail; there are far too many 'parakiller90' on awesomebattles.com to take seriously.

 

Hansen--and me quoting him--on the other hand is talking about historians and classicists where trained professionals contribute to the overall puzzle that historical inquiry tries to solve or at least explain.

 

Anyway the issue is only one paragraph (and one offhand comment by me) on a lengthy essay by one of the best--or at least influential--ancient military historians alive today. It'd be a pity to let it get sidetracked on this issue alone. Anyone with an interest in ancient military history should at least give it a read.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Virgil61