Much of what we now understand about war and tactics has been gleaned
from centuries of history birthed in the Greco-Roman experience. Not only
did Greek and Roman culture lead directly into later European theory by
inspiring the tactical writers and thinkers of the Rennaissance and its
history become a textbook case for latter strategical study, it also had a
directly hands-on influence on the Western approach to war. It is hard to
find a nation in Europe or Eurasia whose natives did not both train under
the direct military guidance of Rome and gain further combat experience in
turn fighting against Roman troops. The so-called barbarians of the Roman
era, after all, were destined to become the predominate races of medieval
and modern Europe, and the ideals of Imperial Rome inextricably bound up
with the morality of the dominant European religious structure. (King,
2004; Sazerac, 2002) So it should not be surprising that there is much to
be learned from Greco-Roman tactical history, and much that may be applied
to the modern world. In particular, parallels may be drawn between the
constant warfare between the urban Greco-Roman world and the nomadic
barbarian cultures that surrounded it, and the modern counter-insurgency
and anti-terrorist "small wars" that engage the attention of the American
super-power -- it seems entirely plausible that if one understood what
aspect of the barbarian strategy dissassembled the powerful Greco-Roman
civilization, one would be prepared to offer powerful advice regarding the
tactics of modern American military movements.
To truly understand the difference between the barbarian and the
Roman strategies, one must first understand that their tactics were rooted
in different primary requirements for success. At the risk of making a
sweeping generalization, it seems that Rome (like Greece or Egypt before
it) was defined by its urban centers an...