[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[JaM]

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!

Actually, both Sabin and Zhmozdikov mention amount of wounded to be similar to the amount of killed, so 10% in total. Also a lot of battles between Roman Legions had casualty rates even below that 5%, while it was not uncommon to actually spare opposite Romans, and instead wipe out any auxillary that were present on opposite side - at least that was what happened at Pharsalus where Caesar stressed out to not kill fellow Roman citizens. ( i guess those heavily wounded would die anyway so they would be counted as dead,while those wounded lightly would be not even counted - even in more modern times, as wounded were usually counted those who needed medical attention and survived, yet a lot of men treated themselves if wounds were not serious )

and regarding armor, ad Dan mentioned, no infantry weapon held in one hand would be able to penetrate armor used at that time, most hits would go into unprotected areas..

Yet, your last sentence is exactly what i'm talking about - nobody in his sane mind would just stand and allow enemy to hit him, just to get an opportunity to hit somebody else as well... that was actually my whole point in this discussion. People use armors and shields to be protected, and they would use these things to be protected.