Killing and The Psychological Cost.

[Aulus Perrinius]

I picked up Lieutenant Colonel (Retired.) Dave Grossman's Book On Killing The Pyschological Cost of Learning How to Kill in War and Society.

A few months later I happened across Joanna Bourke's Book The Intimate History of Killing Face to Face Killing in 20th Century Warfare.

According to both books it's very hard to take Joe Blow and get him to kill his fellow man (In WWII only 15-10% were even willing to fire their rifles). Granted we all can get ticked and roar and rave about making heads roll, or scream things about the guy who cut us off.

But actually ending someone's life is extremely difficult, it's even worse at close range. (It does shed light on Vegetius remark about forcing the Legionaries to thrust instead of cutting)

So, my question is how did the Roman Army motivate and desensitize the Legionaries to the point that they could kill?

Also, what did Legionaries do to deal with their actions? I mean were there any manuals that said something like: "Follow these procedures so that your men don't start screaming and having nightmares." Cleansing Rituals and talking with your comrades on the way home have also been a part of mental healing after combat. Did the Romans do anything like that?

[Vindex]

There was a similar discussion here,

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3660">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3660<!-- l

although the main subject was shell shock not actually killing someone but deals with after combat issues.

There is also a reference for hand to hand combat in Burma in WWII and the US Army in the Pacific Islands...trying to remember it and will post it when I do.

[M. Demetrius]

It must be somewhat cultural. Some groups, ancient and modern, have little problem deliberately killing other people.

I know I would have problems with it, but in certain circumstances, might feel I had no choice to protect my family or myself, or perhaps in the combat line of one sort or another (not much chance of that now, at age 60). What would be my thinking after ending someone's life? I don't know, and frankly, don't want to know. Maybe I can get to the end of mine without taking anyone else's. I'd like that.

[Paullus Scipio]

There may also be a genetic link too.....A New Zealand study found that something like only a third or so men of European descent had what they called the 'warrior gene', but half the Maori male population had it.........

[Aulus Perrinius]

It must be somewhat cultural. Some groups, ancient and modern, have little problem deliberately killing other people.

I know I would have problems with it, but in certain circumstances, might feel I had no choice to protect my family or myself, or perhaps in the combat line of one sort or another (not much chance of that now, at age 60). What would be my thinking after ending someone's life? I don't know, and frankly, don't want to know. Maybe I can get to the end of mine without taking anyone else's. I'd like that.

Agreed. From what I've read, Social and Cultural distances are huge factors.

After all, telling yourself you shot a human being is hard. Telling yourself you popped a 'Dink', 'Slant', 'Gook', or 'Kraut' is much easier.

[montefortino]

In those days, crucifying,torturing,killing was a "normal" way of life.. picture a legion in a barbarian land : the only way to survive was to kill; nothing to compare with nowdays guilt feeling,media coverage or analysis of what one's thought is to squash a fly..same in the medieval days where religion was one of the reason for killing..
In a lot of parts of the muslim countries the use of a blade is still "normal"...they have to bleed their animals in order to eat the meat..matter of habit...

[Epictetus]

The only direct quote that I can think of is this:

Have you ever seen a severed hand or foot, or a decapitated head, just lying somewhere far away from the body that it belonged to? That’s what we do to ourselves – or try to – when we rebel against what happens to us, when we segregate ourselves.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 8.34

The fact that Marcus uses the horror of a battle’s aftermath to illustrate not “living in accordance with nature” is telling. To him as a Stoic, rebelling against something that happens outside of one’s control is as terrible as being mutilated in war. Because he used such an analogy I’m sure he had problems with the aftermath of battle and didn’t just ignore it.

Later (8.38) he tells himself to smell the stench of decay and look at rotting meat. He is trying to force himself to confront the reality of death and decomposition, to view it as it is and not be distressed by it because it is part of the way life works.

This is speculation, but it is conceivable that soldiers familiar with Stoic doctrine used such methods, or even educated officers could have recommended such a course to their men in order to deal with the horror of war.

[Virilis]

I remember when a women`s magazine interviewed a finn war veteran some years ago and asked:

Interviewer: "Is it difficult to shoot at a human being?"
Veteran: "Oh yes, they tend to move a lot...."

[caiusbeerquitius]

I think we should be careful in transferring the modern situation to antiquity. As E. Muir has shown in "Mad Blood Stirring" there were ways to make killing easy, in that case e.g. treating the "prey" like animals, when killing, and afterwards. Especially in a society where almost everybody is used to butcher animals the kill is much easier.

[Jona Lendering]

Interesting debate!

I think that the religious component was important. In March, the Romans sacrificed to open the war season (and in October, it was ritually closed - October Equus). This must have changed a mood. Next step, the declaration of war, by the fetiales: the Romans were fighting a divinely sanctioned war. Finally, the change of ritual state upon leaving the city gate: inside the gate, one was a citizen, outside, a soldier. Everything must have made it clear to the people involved that things were different, that they were allowed (or expected) to act differently.

During my own term in the Dutch army, there was a similar moment, although not religious: when we recruits had entered the barracks, a sergeant came to us and solemnly told us "you are now under military law".

[ParthianBow]

I think we should be careful in transferring the modern situation to antiquity. As E. Muir has shown in "Mad Blood Stirring" there were ways to make killing easy, in that case e.g. treating the "prey" like animals, when killing, and afterwards. Especially in a society where almost everybody is used to butcher animals the kill is much easier.

I couldn't agree more. Speaking from personal and lengthy experience of the Foot & Mouth outbreak in 2001, during which I supervised the slaughter of 20-30,000 animals (cattle, sheep and pigs), and personally euthanased many thousands of them myself, I can say - sadly- that it all becomes very very easy. (In a modern aside, the emotional toll was heavy, and it persisted.)

In my mind, while this experience of killing was to do with livestock and not humans, it has a definite parallel with the way in which soldiers - ancient or modern - would become desensitised to killing. Whether ancient soldiers suffered from PTSD, we will never know, but as Epictetus pointed out with his quote from M. Aurelius, it is quite possible. Just because life in ancient times was more brutal does not mean that killing came 'naturally'. It would have come about far more commonly, because that's how life was. Less would have been made of it too, because that's how things were, but IMO, to say that ancient men were different to us, and they would not have had a natural aversion to killing is erroneous. Otherwise the studies that were done subsequently would not have found the results that they did.

Historical studies on killing, which began in the 1800s, revealed startling truths about men's ability or desire to kill others. Prussian guardsmen's musket accuracy was tested against targets and then against men in a battle. It was found that 70% or so of them could hit a target without difficulty, but when faced with a real man, less than 10% of their shots were accurate. A musket from Gettysburg was found with 20-something balls in the muzzle. Comparisons between the number of rounds fired and the number of casualties in WW2 bear no comparison - something like 3,000 rounds per fatality. There are many similar findings from different periods, and they reveal that despite everything occurring in the savagery of battle, many/most men do not want to kill. Once it has happened a second time, however, and as I mentioned above, it becomes easier. The third time is easier again, and so on.

Of course I know that things are very different when one has to stick a gladius in another's belly, (indeed the most severe PTSD is suffered by those who've had to knife a man to death) especially because one's opponent will lop off your head with his axe or whatever, but the basic premise, according to most military psychologists, is that without proper training, the average man does not want to kill his fellow being. This finding, after enormous American studies in the post WW2 period, allowed a seachange to take place in military training such that the soldiers since are trained in different ways to those previously, and are fully capable of killing every time when ordered to do so. Of course the majority still suffer from PTSD in some way...and so I believe that Roman soldiers would have had some kind of similar experience. To a lesser degree, perhaps, but it would have existed. To deny that it would have some kind of negative psychological impact is to deny them their humanity.

Yet the legions' job often involved killing vast numbers of people. Plain and simple. So to go back to the original question - did the Romans train their men to deal with the horror of killing? Possibly. Possibly not. I suspect not. I'd say they had to deal with it man to man, among their comrades, as soldiers have done through history. Laughed about it. Glorified it. Felt sick about it. Concentrated on calling their enemies 'savages' or 'barbarians'. Taken whatever plunder they could. Done unspeakable things to the women they captured. Taken slaves if they could. Drunk vast amounts of wine. Got on with it.

[Aulus Perrinius]

I think we should be careful in transferring the modern situation to antiquity. As E. Muir has shown in "Mad Blood Stirring" there were ways to make killing easy, in that case e.g. treating the "prey" like animals, when killing, and afterwards. Especially in a society where almost everybody is used to butcher animals the kill is much easier.

Agreed there's always a danger in transferring modern situations to another time. And agreed there were ways to get people to kill.

That being said while killing an animal can be hard (If you've worked with the family Ox for days on end you'll build an attachment) shoving a blade in a human being's guts and then feeling the blood spurt all over your hand and arms and looking that person in the eyes while that person screams. . . After all PTSD was quite prevalent in the Middle Ages, so it must have bothered them.

[M. Demetrius]

I wrote in a novel once, about a man leaving Texas in 1835 who was stopped by two highwaymen, they being disguised as Mexican soldiers. He was Anglo, but had learned to speak Spanish, so he understood that they were planning to kill him and divide up his gear. He shot them both off their horses with his 10ga shotgun, and for years would have nightmares: seeing them in slow motion falling over the horses to the ground. I think it might be like that, should that happen to someone. Self defense or not, it must be a difficult thing to live with. At least that's how I wrote it.

[Aulus Perrinius]

That sounds very believeable. BTW, you wouldn't happen to have a link to said Novel would you?

[M. Demetrius]

No, I don't. I only printed a hundred of them (self publishing is not as cheap as real publishing) I'm planning to do a rewrite on a couple of areas and start the painful submission process again. I have a sequel planned, but, there's no sense unless I can sell the first of the (probable) trilogy.