[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[ValentinianVictrix]

I too have questioned the very low rates of casualties given for the victors as opposed to the vanquished, the 5% total seems about right in this respect. But, you have to figure in the fact that perhaps these figures were fiddled with by the historian who wants to put over to his audience the fact that his societies brave soldiers were much better at fighting, and hence surviving than the enemy they fought who were slaughtered in droves. But even if the casualties quoted were accurate, we have no idea how many injured men were unable to fight after being wounded and who either ended up being invalided out of the army or who recovered and fought in later conflicts. I'm guessing that figure is much higher than the death casualty rate, say as high as 15% of the army total. So for a Late Roman army of 25,000 men a 5% death rate would be 1250 killed, and a potential 3750 wounded/out of action. This seems about right to me, and 20% total dead/incapacitated would explain why after a major battle it took time for another campaign to be conducted.

I think we also overestimate how effective swords, spears, javelins etc were at penetrating armour and shields, especially when ranks were closed and you could not fully extend the arm to use those weapons. And not made any easier by your opponent not wanting to just stand there and take the blow!