[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[Densus]

NO. I believe they used those shields because they gave them tactical advantage, due to their construction, which allowed relatively active use of shield, unlike Greek Aspis, which due to being strapped on the arm had limited capacity for offensive use) they kept formation and fought as a unit. They didn't rush individually at enemy, but covered each other, formed battle line and tried to relieve tired men for fresh when possible. also while front line was engaged in contact with enemy, rear ranks could still use their javelins and throw them at enemy rear ranks. Contact with enemy was brief, after which both sides stepped back, reorganize, then attack again. during luls, those who had javelins would use them from behind the own main line

This is pretty much what Bryan and I have been saying from the start of this thread, and very different to the idea that most men cowered trying not to be hurt while a minority of psychopaths did all of the actual fighting that started this argument.

[JaM]

not really, Bryan tried to force the idea soldiers had some kind of a warrior mentality that made them killing machines that didn't looked at own safety, just to kill whatever was in front of them...

yet in real life, battles were not fought until last man standing, sometimes one side routed with minimal casualties, then was wiped out as they were trying to run away.... military history is full of such examples... if it was all just about killing, nobody would use any formations, and battles would be just duels between opponents, like Hollywood likes to portray...

[Bryan]

not really, Bryan tried to force the idea soldiers had some kind of a warrior mentality that made them killing machines that didn't looked at own safety, just to kill whatever was in front of them...

yet in real life, battles were not fought until last man standing, sometimes one side routed with minimal casualties, then was wiped out as they were trying to run away.... military history is full of such examples... if it was all just about killing, nobody would use any formations, and battles would be just duels between opponents, like Hollywood likes to portray...

No, I said some of the soldiers possessed the warrior mentality, and those men would be placed in the front ranks because those are the true killers in any unit and would be used as such, not kept in the rear, or middle, where they can do no good. I'm a firm believer in the 80/20 rule in all of life, that 20% of the people do 80% of the work. 

I've also stated numerous times in this thread, and in this forum over my many years of posting here, that the Roman culture was much more violent, militant, and tough than your or my current culture, so they would have been capable of things I am not, and you are not. If you can't understand that they were a different people, with different values about self preservation, life, death, war, religion, etc., than you will never understand how they fought, or for that matter how they lived, loved, conducted business and politics. Like I wrote on page 1, what you think is overly dangerous, I don't. And I live in the same exact time as you do. And what I think is overly dangerous, many Romans would call me a cowardly wimp. Because they were from a violent, militant, and aggressive 2,000 year old culture and still believed in glory, having the Gods on their side, and Stoicism.  

I believe that battles aren't fought until last man standing because in real hand to hand combat its not easy to kill an enemy, which is one thing nearly every movie gets grossly wrong. And because its easier to wound than kill, and because its relatively easy to evacuate wounded men from the front (though if you rout they all die), you see victorious armies with small numbers of deaths but usually large number of wounded (mostly walking wounded, who will heal in time). 

And I believe that morale factors in, as Napoleon said, moral is to the physical as three is to one, when one side sees its best and most aggressive get killed or wounded in an intense fight they are going to be less than enthusiastic to replace them, which means they will step back, not forward, which is how routs start. For instance, take two Romans. One is a bit more timid than the other. Somewhere down the line the centurion or someone else will identify this and will place them accordingly in different parts of the unit. The aggressive Roman goes in the front rank, the timid Roman behind him. When Gaius Aggressive takes a sword through the mouth, ala Crastinus, that would demonstrate to Tiberius Timid that that he has even a better reason not to advance into the front ranks. Maybe Tiberius Timid even realizes that he doesn't want to be there anymore and starts backing up. Other timid or morally defeated soldiers do the same thing, and the unit retreats under poor order, which is a rout. 

Frankly, if you can't imagine yourself in the front lines of a Roman century, fighting it out, killing the enemy, hoping to strip the enemy dead, plunder their cities, have the centurions, tribunes and generals personally see you being a bad ass and rewarding you with crowns, torques, phalarae, than you will never understand how they fought because you lack sufficient imagination. And its not just ancient warfare, if someone is interested in modern warfare but can't see themselves standing up and assaulting through a murderous close ambush as modern infantry are trained and routinely execute in real combat, then they will never ultimately understand how modern warfare works. And thus maybe they shouldn't lecture others on it.

[Hasdrubal]

Sigh. I served in the US army in a combat MOS. I'll be the first to tell you guys that myself and my fellow soldiers had no problems shooting an enemy in the face if they shot at us without blinking. My mentality and a lot of my fellow Americans in the military have no problem with taking a human life if we feel they're a threat. 

I would rather die on my feet fighting then on my knees begging. Then again it's why i joined the military. There's evil people in this world and in my mind it's up to me to keep it free so you can be on the internet to argue about what kind of mentality it takes to have in combat warfare.

---

Why won't it let me edit my post? This was a reply to people who say men are scared to kill another man in today's times. There are brutal people out there. There's sheep, there's wolves, and then there are sheep dogs. I consider myself a sheep dog. I love life and I value it, but freedom isn't free, and sometimes to preserve life you have to defend it.

[Bryan]

Sigh. I served in the US army in a combat MOS. I'll be the first to tell you guys that myself and my fellow soldiers had no problems shooting an enemy in the face if they shot at us without blinking. My mentality and a lot of my fellow Americans in the military have no problem with taking a human life if we feel they're a threat. 

I would rather die on my feet fighting then on my knees begging. Then again it's why i joined the military. There's evil people in this world and in my mind it's up to me to keep it free so you can be on the internet to argue about what kind of mentality it takes to have in combat warfare.

---

Why won't it let me edit my post? This was a reply to people who say men are scared to kill another man in today's times. There are brutal people out there. There's sheep, there's wolves, and then there are sheep dogs. I consider myself a sheep dog. I love life and I value it, but freedom isn't free, and sometimes to preserve life you have to defend it.

Amen. And I think that spirit I am referring to, that mindset to unflinchingly get ones hands bloody, its unique in modern times, especially in western civilizations which have destroyed the ethos of glory and martial manliness, but was still alive and strong in ancient cultures and peoples that were militant, violent, aggressive, and loved all things warrior. People like us are odd nowadays, whereas we were the norm back then.

[Hasdrubal]

Bryan, your assessment I believe is spot on.

[JaM]

you should then probably start to actually listen what other people are saying.. that video for example, is actually stating same thing you wrote, and I was practically advocating this the whole time (small minority did the actual fighting). It was you who declined all my posts as false, and then pushing the warrior part forward, while i was always trying to say that not all men were aggressive, not all would be willing to take those risks... you tend to dismay a video the first moment you hear name SLA Marshal, ignoring other valid comments and sources in it, together with a valid conclusion that has been made at the end.. so do yourself a favor, and watch that video to the end if you want to dismay it...

And yes, i went into extremes, but that was just to show you how ridiculous your propositions sounds, that was the main reason behind the shield example, and by no means i was trying to dismay the usefulness of the shield..But over those few months i've been active on this forum, i noticed your tendency to fight the discussion battles just for sake to win an argument, no matter what cost (like when you celebrated when i admitted that overarm might be also used in combat, forgetting that i said ALSO, and not that it was exclusive use btw)... Personally, i have no time for a troll fights, as i said before, i came here to look for interesting information to expand my knowledge, i've been using in my gaming or modding work.

[Bryan]

you should then probably start to actually listen what other people are saying.. that video for example, is actually stating same thing you wrote, and I was practically advocating this the whole time (small minority did the actual fighting). It was you who declined all my posts as false, and then pushing the warrior part forward, while i was always trying to say that not all men were aggressive, not all would be willing to take those risks... you tend to dismay a video the first moment you hear name SLA Marshal, ignoring other valid comments and sources in it, together with a valid conclusion that has been made at the end.. so do yourself a favor, and watch that video to the end if you want to dismay it...

And yes, i went into extremes, but that was just to show you how ridiculous your propositions sounds, that was the main reason behind the shield example, and by no means i was trying to dismay the usefulness of the shield..But over those few months i've been active on this forum, i noticed your tendency to fight the discussion battles just for sake to win an argument, no matter what cost (like when you celebrated when i admitted that overarm might be also used in combat, forgetting that i said ALSO, and not that it was exclusive use btw)... Personally, i have no time for a troll fights, as i said before, i came here to look for interesting information to expand my knowledge, i've been using in my gaming or modding work.

Troll attacks? I'm not the one who only recently started posting on RAT to discuss things that the rest of us have been discussing for years. You tried throwing Grossman in our faces, then Marshall, not even knowing that the more you mentioned it revealed how little you actually know about this subject. As I've discussed before, mentioning either name is akin to trying to lecture others about Roman history while using Dando-Collins as a source, it says more about the speaker's ignorance than they'd wish it to, better to remain silent. 

I dismissed the video because Lindybiege often talks out his butt about things he doesn't really understand at all, and I didn't care to waste another 15 minutes listening to him trying to prove anything when the very first source he lists is the most blatant lie in the entire subject. I don't care what you have to say about the subject if you start out with "And as it was written, the sun revolves around the earth", or any other outdated and incorrect piece of historical knowledge. Marshall, and all who use his work to discuss the subject of combat psychology, all are wrong and the minute someone uses them as a source they discredit themselves automatically because it proves their ignorance on the subject. 

Let me be clear on my view that Roman culture was a warrior culture. They didn't think like you. They believed in concepts like virtus, which is so alien to modern culture we have trouble even defining it. They believed in a level of Stoicism more reminiscent of Imperial Japan than modern America or Europe. Stop trying to place your values and understanding of violence and fighting, which appears limited to what you learned on the internet, to the historical record which says the complete opposite of what you are preaching. So if you don't understand them at all, if you simply refuse to accept that their culture is as alien to your own as yours is to say Vikings or Samurai, then you will have no ability to describe how they fought. Because you don't understand them. 

Frankly, the more you try to use shield size to defend your theory, the deeper the hole you dig. Romans didn't choose the scutum because it allowed them to hide better. It was a shield type tied to them by cultural tradition. They kept using it because it was relatively cheap and easy to make, durable, had offensive capabilities as well as defensive, and because it protected the whole body, head to toe, while being light enough to maneuver easy enough to not be a hindrance in close combat or on the march. Its large size didn't mean the men who carried them were timid fighters hiding behind a wall, especially since numerous sources describing Romans in battle specifically say they didn't fight in a shield wall, they fought up close as individual swordsman. 

If you want info to help your gaming mod, then the best way would be to ask questions instead of drawing conclusions and then getting upset and defensive when others correct them.

---

my few lines on this topic:

Human Psychology is the same, it doesn't changes just because society values life less or more. Every single normal human being is not suicidal,and would struggle against dangers where he could possible lose life. His instincts would kick in and would try to survive, its coded into our DNA..

Explain Crastinus' Charge. Explain Spartans at Thermopylae. Explain the Samurai and later Imperial Japanese Army.


but back to combat psychology - large majority of men would not put themselves into danger. Of course, as in any society, there would be a certain percentage of men who are psychologically "changed" and would actually seek direct danger, but that's not what the average human would do. Average soldier would look at his own protection, hitting and killing an enemy in close combat would be his last concern, and he would only do that if he is sure with own safety. Plus, a large amount of population would be practically "cowards" who would just turn and run once in vicinity of danger.

Explain why large numbers of young men put themselves in grave danger during WWI and WWII.


So actual close combat would be a clash of two groups of men, where everybody tries to keep himself at distance from the danger, and strike from protected position, while on both sides there would be few "brave" who would actually fight to kill, not looking for own safety. Yet, if one group gets into slightly disadvantageous position, those cowardly would just turn and run away, while others, knowing they don't have anybody backing them would have no choice but run as well..

Explain why the "brave" men of ancient, medieval, and modern warfare all used defensive means of protecting themselves, while still trying to kill the enemy. And how their equipment differed in almost no way from the common soldier. 


Personally, i like the work of Alexander Zhmodikov on this topic, who suggested that Roman Legionarii didn't only use their pila at the charge, but actually used them continuously during entire battle. Units clashed for few minutes, then separated, reorganized, and clashed again, and javelins were quite ideal weapon to reach not so distant enemy before another clash. Battles therefore were practically a sum of multiple luls and clashes on the battlefield, with relatively low losses from direct fighting, until one side's morale broke. Typically, there was about 5% casualties taken from direct fighting, which was usually same on both sides, then when rout happened, routing side was just decimated by the victors, creating those huge casualties we are reading about..

Zhmodikov demonstrated that there was more than one way of killing the enemy. And by throwing the pila and hit an enemy that would put the Romans within range of their enemy's missile weapons as well, meaning they too were put in a risky situation where they could become a casualty. Did they stay out of missile range of the enemy? No. Which means your theory is wrong. 


Human Psychology is also main reason why i dont buy the teories about Hoplite pushing matches. Soldiers in front would really hate to be pushed towards the enemy while they are
fighting them.. to fight, you need space, but if you are pushed in the back from behind, your own men are denying you the space to fight effectively, which would just create a rout much easily

Why is it then that when people watch videos of knife fights they see one or both fighters rapidly closing with the enemy to stick them?

If you stack warriors deeply and the lead ranker closes the distance with the enemy infantry, and everyone else follows the promachoi, then it creates a crush of body when the promachoi hits the enemy rank. The next logical thing that happens is that this crush turns into a shoving match, with close range stabbing and cutting happening with swords and daggers, which is othismos. 

Some more info on why you're wrong. You're in italics.

[Hasdrubal]

Bryan, this is why I tried to avoid this thread. People who don't have the same opinion as you or differing views sometimes can get hostile. I enjoy this site because it has good information and I feel like I'm with fellow historians with the same love for Ancient Roman history as I do. I'm afraid if I speak my mind I'll get banned hence trying to avoid this particular thread.

Machiavelli mentioned in the prince, that sometimes that in order to have peace you have to rule by fear when you can't rule by peace or both (ad libbing here). He was referring to Lucius Paullus Amelianus Macedonicus's destruction of Epirus after the 3rd Macedonian war with Perseus. He understood human nature, and what Pax Romano meant. Obviously they had a small rebellion with andriskos, and the Achaean league, but after that ancient Greece fighting days were done. Better to teach the Romans math and literature, rather then to face them with steel.

I remember reading about a WW2 vet talking about today's issues with extremist Islam. He mentioned Japan back in WW2 was similar to the extremist Islam. However back then we had a stomach to get things done. We no longer have ANY issues with Japanese extremism like we did 70 years ago. We have people who think peace is the way to prosperity. Those people don't understand hard men.

A good quote I've always liked. Good times make soft people. Soft people make hard times. Hard times makes hard people. Hard people make good times.

[Bryan]

Bryan, this is why I tried to avoid this thread. People who don't have the same opinion as you or differing views sometimes can get hostile. I enjoy this site because it has good information and I feel like I'm with fellow historians with the same love for Ancient Roman history as I do. I'm afraid if I speak my mind I'll get banned hence trying to avoid this particular thread.

Machiavelli mentioned in the prince, that sometimes that in order to have peace you have to rule by fear when you can't rule by peace or both (ad libbing here). He was referring to Lucius Paullus Amelianus Macedonicus's destruction of Epirus after the 3rd Macedonian war with Perseus. He understood human nature, and what Pax Romano meant. Obviously they had a small rebellion with andriskos, and the Achaean league, but after that ancient Greece fighting days were done. Better to teach the Romans math and literature, rather then to face them with steel.

I remember reading about a WW2 vet talking about today's issues with extremist Islam. He mentioned Japan back in WW2 was similar to the extremist Islam. However back then we had a stomach to get things done. We no longer have ANY issues with Japanese extremism like we did 70 years ago. We have people who think peace is the way to prosperity. Those people don't understand hard men.

A good quote I've always liked. Good times make soft people. Soft people make hard times. Hard times makes hard people. Hard people make good times.

good quote indeed.

[JaM]

Let me be clear on my view that Roman culture was a warrior culture. They didn't think like you. They believed in concepts like virtus, which is so alien to modern culture we have trouble even defining it. They believed in a level of Stoicism more reminiscent of Imperial Japan than modern America or Europe. Stop trying to place your values and understanding of violence and fighting, which appears limited to what you learned on the internet, to the historical record which says the complete opposite of what you are preaching. So if you don't understand them at all, if you simply refuse to accept that their culture is as alien to your own as yours is to say Vikings or Samurai, then you will have no ability to describe how they fought. Because you don't understand them.

yeah right... with the exception that Samurai were the least reliable thing Japan armies had in their ranks, and all the major fighting was done by Ashigaru forces.. Samurai usually were more interested in fighting each other than listening to orders... so your example falls very short here..  And whole idea that ancient people had different instincts than us, that they didnt had self-preservation instinct is a BS.  Ancient soldiers were not machines, as i repeatedly wrote here. they didnt fought to the death, if there was other option (run away), same way as soldiers in more modern times (let say Napoleonic wars)

And again, I already told you your WW1 example is faulty - soldiers who did not charged when ordered were sentenced to death.. those men had no other choice, either be executed, or charge against the machinegun fire.. same thing with WW2 and Russian soldiers, who were sent into charges even without weapons. They had no choice, and human psychology accepts unknown danger more than certain one (death squad, KGB Komisaar with a handgun aiming at your head)

Frankly, the more you try to use shield size to defend your theory, the deeper the hole you dig. Romans didn't choose the scutum because it allowed them to hide better. It was a shield type tied to them by cultural tradition. They kept using it because it was relatively cheap and easy to make, durable, had offensive capabilities as well as defensive, and because it protected the whole body, head to toe, while being light enough to maneuver easy enough to not be a hindrance in close combat or on the march. Its large size didn't mean the men who carried them were timid fighters hiding behind a wall, especially since numerous sources describing Romans in battle specifically say they didn't fight in a shield wall, they fought up close as individual swordsman.

Oh really, yet fun fact is, that Scutum is just a latin word describing a shield... could be used to describe ANY shield... so here goes your cultural tradition with it... Romans were practical people, had no issue actually using whatever worked best, be it Clippeus, Scutum or whatever shield they used over time..
Republican scutum is actually the least maneuverable shield available, with 7-10kg heavy it was definitely the heaviest shield in use by that time.. so there is obviously a reason why they rather used this heavy shield instead of lighter ones... and for warrior style duel combat outside of formation small bucklers would be much more preferable (as it was thorough the history, look at late Medieval/renaissance duel manuals, no swordsman would carry a Pavise into a duel against opponent with buckler - and im not taliking about light hand pavise but normal 125x75mm 7.5-10kg late medieval Pavise - Pavise was btw same weight and size as Roman Republican Scutum)... but for formation fighting, Scutum gave Romans advantage. Just because some historians (who are most likely not former Roman soldiers) wrote that they fought as individuals, it doesnt automatically mean they fought individually and did not rely on formations and support of others.. It actually doesnt matter how tight or open formation they used, they could easily just send men from second rank closer  to form  tighter formation when needed. Whole idea that they formed perfect square/rectangle formations and stood there like a tin soldiers is ridiculous. And yes, they didnt used shield wall in term of interlocked shields, yet shield wall  of men having shields post on the ground and covering behind them was used often, and its something mentioned a lot. (Wars against Jugurtha, Socii wars, Civil Wars etc etc...)


Zhmodikov demonstrated that there was more than one way of killing the enemy. And by throwing the pila and hit an enemy that would put the Romans within range of their enemy's missile weapons as well, meaning they too were put in a risky situation where they could become a casualty. Did they stay out of missile range of the enemy? No. Which means your theory is wrong.

Nobody says they were outside of range of enemy missile weapons... both sides would use whatever ranged weapons they had at their disposal during luls.. why would it be otherwise??? Are you suggesting men would just stood there, having javelins in their arms and would just wait until got to them? or would they just put their javelins on the ground? NO. They would try to use them, and luls were ideal time when these weapons could be used. Another example - In 18-19.century, during bayonet charges, it was more common to get shot from charging enemy than being stabbed by bayonet.. soldiers chose to fire their weapon, than stab enemy into guts... Thing is, if you have a means to kill enemy at range, no matter how short that range is, you will take it... And with Romans, Pilum was considered to be a primary weapon, gladius was secondary... its more than probable heavy socketted pilum was used as a spear in close combat, and gladius was only used when Legionary already throw both his pila at the enemy.

oh and btw, thats not my theory, that's ZHMODIKOV's theory... Or you wanna say Zhmodikov is also a fraud and his work was disproved too???


And regarding self-preservation instinct... everybody has it, except for psychically very sick individuals..  its the instinct that prevents you from jumping from a tall building, or running yourself with a knife.. (i have a very personal experience with this one actually, one of my friends got a paranoia, he wanted to kill himself, run away from home, we were searching the woods for 2 days looking for him.. we found him eventually, luckily alive, he had a knife marks on his belly, as he wanted to run himself with a knife, but it was just too much for him and he couldnt do it.. he got treatment and is well now, yet he had few relapses..) Yes, self preservation instinct can be "overriden" but its not something just anybody is capable doing.. fanatism, belief that his death will grant him ethernal life is one thing.. yet even ISIS usually "drafts" psychically damaged people for suicide bombings...


If you want info to help your gaming mod, then the best way would be to ask questions instead of drawing conclusions and then getting upset and defensive when others correct them.

funny that you say that..as each time i ask you to back your claim with some sources, i get nothing, you tend to just bashing my posts, how wrong they are, but you give nothing relevant back.. so no surprise im getting upset with your style of response..

[Crispianus]

"Republican scutum is actually the least maneuverable shield available, with 7-10kg heavy"

Discussion here of shield weight:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/thread-27034.html

but thats probably best continued there...

[Bryan]

yet shield wall  of men having shields post on the ground and covering behind them was used often, and its something mentioned a lot. (Wars against Jugurtha, Socii wars, Civil Wars etc etc...)

Prove that the Romans placed the bottom edge of their scutum on the ground, forming an actual wall, and then fought from behind it, and do it with PRIMARY sources.

[Robert Vermaat]

People, keep the discussion nice and without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Mod out.

[JaM]

here you have:


On the following day they went forward under better protection; and the Parthians met with a great surprise when they attacked them. For they thought they were riding up for plunder and booty, not battle, and when they encountered many missiles and saw that the Romans were fresh and vigorous and eager for the fray, they were once more tired of the struggle. 2 However, as the Romans were descending some steep hills, the Parthians attacked them and shot at them as they slowly moved along. Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them. The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof,41 affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it. 3 The Parthians, however, thinking that the Romans dropping on one knee was a sign of fatigue and exhaustion, laid aside their bows, grasped their spears by the middle and came to close quarters. But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout. This happened also on the following days as the Romans, little by little, proceeded on their way.    Plutarch, Life of Anthony,  p241