[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[JaM]

then why didnt they slaughtered others? I posted the statistics.. losses in direct combat were incredibly low.. 5% (or less) for entire battle, that sometimes could take several hours is not that much.. Plus, im not saying they would not kill enemy when there is a chance to kill him... i'm telling they would not put themselves in danger just to score such hit... they would instead keep their cover, and only strike when  enemy cannot strike them..

Of course they would not hesitate to slaughter others if opportunity was presented... losing side lost typically 40-50% of original number, but up to 35-45% of that number was dealt when losing army fell into retreat...  chasing men wouldn't be threatened by routing enemy as they were while fighting in formation, so they would be more likely to butcher them, and this was typical no matter the era... same thing happened with Line infantry in 18.century, who often butchered routing enemy with the same ferocity (British at Culoden caused majority of Scottish casualties when they pursued routing highlanders for example...)- butchering the enemy on rout was said to be somewhat combat stress relieving experience of some sort...

so no, im not questioning willing to kill, i'm questioning the willing to kill the enemy no matter the personal consequences...