08-15-2001, 01:31 PM
Avete!<br>
One other factor is that it was only since World War I that the concept of "shell shock" really got going as something that could be treated, or even should be treated. Before that, an acquired fear of battle was likely to be regarded as simple cowardice. As late as World War II, General Patton pretty much ended his career by slapping a soldier who was in the hospital for "battle fatigue". He was forced to apologize. This stunned the Germans, who were still apparently shooting men out of hand for cowardice--they were wondering why Patton hadn't killed the guy, and what the Americans were all so upset about.<br>
<br>
That kind of attitude was probably even more ingrained in the ancient world. Do what you have to do, and if you can't, you're a coward. Harsh! Especially if the "coward" found the courage to commit suicide.<br>
<br>
Another excellent book is "The History of Warfare"--ack, I think it's Keegan again, but I'm not sure. The author believes that primitive hunters and nomads made good warriors, especially in scouting, ambushing, hit and run stuff. But they met their match in settled agrarian cultures, composed of people who had a vested interest in defending their crops and homes, knew how to herd animals into a pen (and therefore knew the basics of herding humans into a trap), and had no qualms about cutting throats or chopping things up. Really makes you sit back and say "Oh..."<br>
<br>
One last thing, a little more relevant. Josephus, in his description of the Roman army, itself an attempt to convince the rest of the world NOT TO MESS WITH THE ROMANS, says that one of the Romans' big advantages is that they ENJOYED war! The army LIKED going off to battle and sacking towns! Tacitus reinforces this in his descriptions of the Battle of Cremona in 68 AD, saying that the soldiers refused the generals' orders to stop and fortify a camp, instead rushing headlong to get to grips with the enemy. This was a civil war, mind you, Roman legions on both sides, and discipline went completely out the window simply because the men couldn't wait to kill each other! Obviously there had to be at least a few men with a little less enthusiasm in the ranks, but it doesn't look like psychological trauma was having much effect.<br>
<br>
Good question, Brianus!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX <p></p><i></i>
One other factor is that it was only since World War I that the concept of "shell shock" really got going as something that could be treated, or even should be treated. Before that, an acquired fear of battle was likely to be regarded as simple cowardice. As late as World War II, General Patton pretty much ended his career by slapping a soldier who was in the hospital for "battle fatigue". He was forced to apologize. This stunned the Germans, who were still apparently shooting men out of hand for cowardice--they were wondering why Patton hadn't killed the guy, and what the Americans were all so upset about.<br>
<br>
That kind of attitude was probably even more ingrained in the ancient world. Do what you have to do, and if you can't, you're a coward. Harsh! Especially if the "coward" found the courage to commit suicide.<br>
<br>
Another excellent book is "The History of Warfare"--ack, I think it's Keegan again, but I'm not sure. The author believes that primitive hunters and nomads made good warriors, especially in scouting, ambushing, hit and run stuff. But they met their match in settled agrarian cultures, composed of people who had a vested interest in defending their crops and homes, knew how to herd animals into a pen (and therefore knew the basics of herding humans into a trap), and had no qualms about cutting throats or chopping things up. Really makes you sit back and say "Oh..."<br>
<br>
One last thing, a little more relevant. Josephus, in his description of the Roman army, itself an attempt to convince the rest of the world NOT TO MESS WITH THE ROMANS, says that one of the Romans' big advantages is that they ENJOYED war! The army LIKED going off to battle and sacking towns! Tacitus reinforces this in his descriptions of the Battle of Cremona in 68 AD, saying that the soldiers refused the generals' orders to stop and fortify a camp, instead rushing headlong to get to grips with the enemy. This was a civil war, mind you, Roman legions on both sides, and discipline went completely out the window simply because the men couldn't wait to kill each other! Obviously there had to be at least a few men with a little less enthusiasm in the ranks, but it doesn't look like psychological trauma was having much effect.<br>
<br>
Good question, Brianus!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX <p></p><i></i>
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
