Reddit Reddit reviews Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity

We found 5 Reddit comments about Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
Ancient Civilizations
Ancient Greek History
Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity
Check price on Amazon

5 Reddit comments about Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity:

u/AlphaOC · 2 pointsr/totalwar

I took a class on Greek and Roman warfare in college and one of the books was Soldiers and Ghosts. It's not light reading at all, but it describes how they fought and why they fought that way (the Greek system of war was especially strange and the Romans were hilariously inflexible about certain things).

u/FlavivsAetivs · 1 pointr/Imperator

Roman Smithing: Iron for the Eagles

Roman Armor Production and Construction: Roman Imperial Armor by Sim and Kaminski

Military Clothing: Roman Military Dress

Romano-Byzantine Court Dress: By the Emperor's Hand

General Roman Dress: Roman Clothing and Fasion

Why/how Ancient Battles were fought: Soldiers and Ghosts by J.E. Lendon

On Roman soldiers themselves: Rome and the Sword by Simon James

The Year of the Four Emperors: The Long Year: AD 69

Late Roman Generals: Aetius: Attila's Nemesis, Belisarius: The Last Roman General + The Gothic War, and Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome.

Ian Hughes also has a complementary book to his Aetius on Attila the Hun coming out in late 2018/early 2019. I have one on the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields coming out in April 2019 as well, more or less alongside it, but I don't have links for either of them.

u/matrius · 1 pointr/totalwar
u/wedge102885 · 1 pointr/totalwar
u/JupeJupeSound · -2 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

Well first let's define what we mean by collectivism. I suggest using Hofstede's defintion:

>Collectivistic cultures emphasize the needs and goals of the group as a whole over the liberty of each individual. In such cultures, relationships with other members of the group and the interconnectedness between people play a central role in each person's identity.

Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication, developed by Geert Hofstede. It describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.

Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and on moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization. A cooperative enterprise would be an example of horizontal collectivism, whereas a military hierarchy would be an example of vertical collectivism.

Horizontal collectivism grows out of Individualism as population density increases and the nation secures virtually limitless resources. While Horizontal collectivism is adaptive, vertical is maladaptive. Countries founded on Individualist principles do not survive the transition from individualism through horizontal collectivism to vertical collectivism.

Not distinguishing between horizontal and vertical collectivism would give us more countries but we don't need more examples than USSR, Rome, Byzantium, Egypt, and Germany under Hitler. No country has ever survived this.

The only countries with collectivist slants we have are the remnants of past empires which fell to the turnover, such as china. The PRC's system is an aristocratic republic. During the early dynasties china was individualist, and the lack of civil rights in PRC is a direct result of collectivism. They have a highly masculine system and yet there is low indulgence and low uncertainty avoidance, meaning the current workforce is deluded with individualist values (society will be driven by competition, achievement and success) when they are powerless to actually manifest them with such high long term orientation.

http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html

https://www.library.ln.edu.hk/eresources/etext/hkibs/hkws_0040.pdf

Only time will tell whether collectivism takes down china a second time. I included it in the post because it's commonly used as an example of a country which survives turnover, which is fallacious because the current aristocracy is in power because of a collectivist turnover. I think it's important to include citations regarding china because I know that it's the other side of the argument and I want to be fair. This empowers you to form your own opinion as we find support for our positions and communicate. While I personally believe the PRC exists because of a collectivist turnover, some basic arguments about China's potency as a collectivist nation can be made to show it's the only nation in history that may have survived a turnover, depending on what language you want to use (which is disingenous at best).

If you want to read about the fall of individualist Rome to collectivism I suggest J.E. Lendon's 'Soldiers and Ghosts'. He details the rise of fraud and mania in accordance with Romes fetish for greek culture, which led to liberal politics which undermined the individualist values which ensured Romes dominance in the region. The romans became obsessed with the allure of greek virtues in combat and culture, which led to mutations in rome's culture, warfare, commerce, politics and education which led to it's downfall. He makes the argument that this neurosis, which is complicated to understand and internalize, was the fall of rome. It's a great read. http://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-Ghosts-History-Classical-Antiquity/dp/0300119798

But enough about me, what do you think?