[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[CNV2855]

It has nothing to do with fear, just that combat elicits a biological response in people who have been trained and exposed to years of combat.

Most infantrymen probably knew nothing about the concentration camps, or really the full extent of what had been done until after the war had ended. By calling their actions evil we're demonizing the Germans, instead when we should be more concerned how a sophisticated, modern society could fall to that level of depravity. If the Germans are capable of committing acts like this, then we are as well. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that human nature doesn't have a darkness that can be exploited for political or economic purposes.

The United States has never fought a war for humanitarian reasons. WW2 wasn't fought on humanitarian grounds.

The answer is that Americans across the political spectrum believed they were fighting to defend their inalienable rights, which included the freedom of the seas.

This is why I worry that the nature of warfare is less organic than we think. Both sides are usually convinced think they're fighting for the "right" reasons, and are irreconcilable with one another.

[Bryan]

It has nothing to do with fear, just that combat elicits a biological response in people who have been trained and exposed to years of combat.

Most infantrymen probably knew nothing about the concentration camps, or really the full extent of what had been done until after the war had ended.    By calling their actions evil we're demonizing the Germans, instead when we should be more concerned how a sophisticated, modern society could fall to that level of depravity.  If the Germans are capable of committing acts like this, then we are as well.  Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that human nature doesn't have a darkness that can be exploited for political or economic purposes.

The United States has never fought a war for humanitarian reasons.  WW2 wasn't fought on humanitarian grounds.

The answer is that Americans across the political spectrum believed they were fighting to defend their inalienable rights, which included the freedom of the seas.

This is why I worry that the nature of warfare is less organic than we think.  Both sides are usually convinced think they're fighting for the "right" reasons, and are irreconcilable with one another.

This has nothing to do with WWII. You were already alluding to dehumanizing the enemy. What do you think it appears as? It appears exactly how I wrote it, like in WWII accounts when veterans describe the enemy as evil, as bad men worthy of death. Descriptions like that help take the sting away from the after effects of killing them, because the veteran is not afraid to describe what they did. They can be proud of killing the SS, most people wouldn't think to question them. But if they were to describe killing some poor conscripted soldiers they'd be less likely to discuss it after because of the threat that some bleeding heart would start telling me that "they were people too." Its the same with killing women and children too. In the ancient world it was customary to enslave them at the very least, army wide orders to exterminate male populations, occasionally all living things in a town, that too was common enough that there was no stigma attached if the enemy "deserved it" by resisting. Could you see Mrs. American Mom, wearing her apron after cooking a fresh apple pie, finding out her son slaughtered a village worth of men, women, and children? People have changed but as you said, and I agree, the human ability for great violence, brutality, is always there, just need to scratch the surface to reach it. 

Duty dictates that soldiers fight whomever their told to with equal vigor. A concept that was heavily part of the Roman military culture of virtus. Besides, all peoples have enough negative qualities that dehumanizing the ones you have to kill is never too hard to do.

[Robert Vermaat]

Thread split from the Original about gladius & hamata - for reasons of grossly straying from the subject.

[Densus]

You seems to not understand what i'm writing about... Self-preservation is not something ordinary man can simply switch off and on as he pleases.. you usually have to overcome it, no matter who you are.. its an instinct that keeps you alive, that prevents you doing things that could be potentially dangerous..  yes, some men were able to overcome it, but it was not a norm that can be expected from every single soldier, and such a feat was usually something exceptional, and worth mentioning by somebody important.(like Caesar for example)

and also you cannot build up a combat formation theory, that just completely goes against such a base human instincts.. If anything, their combat tactics would follow these "rules", try to bend them to gain advantage (using same thing against the enemy, make him withdraw/run from battle first) People are not mindless robots. They would not stand and hack each other into pieces until killed.

I disagree completely with your theory and it goes against everything I have experienced. Obviously my experiences are from the modern era and may not reflect what happened in the Roman era, but personally I don't believe it was massively different. It all begins in training where it is proved to you over and over that you need to risk your life to win a fight and if you don't win you are in more danger.

To use the simplest example; when you come under fire you take cover, that is pure survival instinct. While you are in cover you are 'safe' but you are not able to fight and if you don't fight you don't win thereby putting yourself back in danger. In order to fight you need to get as much of you out of cover as needed to return fire and eventually all of you is coming out of cover to be able to manoeuvre and destroy the enemy.

It is not the exceptional individuals who do this, it is everyone, in fact what would be exceptional in an infantry unit would be an individual that didn't take risks in order to fight. I personally have never seen it although I know it does sometimes happen.

For the Romans the same thing remained true, you were safer if you won, you won by killing the enemy and you needed to risk your own safety to kill the enemy.

[JaM]

Densus: its not my theory. Its theory of multiple people who actually studied this in detail in the past. I''l post some links to their work later

[Densus]

Densus: its not my theory. Its theory of multiple people who actually studied this in detail in the past. I''l post some links to their work later

It will interesting to see how many of them have any actual experience of the type of incident they are studying.

[JaM]

read for example this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/tal...ma-killing

In animals as well as in humans, it is more natural to make attempts to initially frighten away enemy. Known as posturing, the hope is that the target of the attack will retreat, and death will therefore be avoided. Even a rattlesnake, that will kill a human without hesitation, will avoid killing another rattlesnake where possible. Posturing was readily adopted by soldiers in both World Wars resulting in 80 to 85% of soldiers firing their weapons into the air above the enemy’s head rather than directly at them.

Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In reality, the “duty” is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a lifetime. Being responsible for ending the life of another human is a significant source of trauma; trauma that is compounded by factors such as proximity to the victim and the type of weapon used.

One of the factors that Grossman explores in detail is distance. If the victim is far away and out of sight, the mental impact of the act of killing is far less. When soldiers can’t see the victims it is easier to remain in denial about the consequences of their actions.

Distance also allows soldiers to dehumanize and create a negative picture of the enemy. It is much easier to demonize a target when that target remains nameless and faceless. Grossman states that one of the reasons so many derogatory descriptions of enemies based on race and religion develop during periods of war is that these assaults on character make it easier for soldiers to detach themselves from the enemy and justify the attack.

Recommend reading "On killing" and "On Combat", both written by (Lieutenant Colonel) David  Grossman

http://kropfpolisci.com/cognitive.grossman.pdf

http://www.bva.va.gov/docs/VLR_VOL2/Copy...Donald.pdf


And of course, there is also work of mr. Sabin -  The Mechanics of Battle in the Second Punic War, or mr Zhmodikov who both published their works which study the problematics of the close combat in ancient times in detail..


Also, there is a well written summary of multiple works done by Garry Bruggeman:

http://www.garyb.0catch.com/intro_update...pdate.html

there you can find things like:

Casualty statistics for ancient armies are relatively consistent. Gabriel and Metz in their book From Sumer to Rome offer an analysis of casualties. On page 86 they conclude "On average, the percentage of dead suffered by a defeated army was 37.7%. . . . Death rates for victorious armies, however, were considerably lower, about 5.5%. . . . The disparity in kill rates suggests strongly that most of the killing occurred after one side or the other broke formation and could be hunted down and slain with comparative ease." They go on to conclude that the number of wounded was roughly similar to the number killed in each case.

Furthermore, in their study of battles with known casualty figures they included the battles of Pharsalus and Munda which featured two Roman armies fighting each other. In these battles Caesar lost 1.4% and 2% killed respectively while the loser lost 33% and 41.2%.
Low casualty rates reflect on the effectiveness of weapon systems. If casualties could average around 5% and be as low as 2% then none of the weapons used could have been very effective.

It will also be important to make some general decisions about how to distribute casualties over time during the course of the entire battle. Although some battles were decided at the first onrush, others could last half a day. Two hours would not be a bad estimate of an average battle from initial charge to the time that one side or the other broke and ran.
Based on Gabriel and Metz's analysis it would seem that both armies suffered casualties in the vicinity of 5.5% during the time they were fighting face to face. To build a model of fighting the casualties were divided between those caused at the initial charge and those that came during the course of battle. With no data to base a guess on, the casualties were arbitrarily divided evenly between the two phases; that is, ½ of the casualties occurred during the initial charge and the other ½ were spread out over the duration of the battle more or less evenly. If the initial charge sequence is taken to have lasted roughly 20 minutes then there are 1 hour and 40 minutes of the 2 hour battle remaining. During that 100 minutes 2¼ % of the casualties occur. Casualties occur at the rate of ¼ % every 20 minutes.

The basic casualty rates are pretty sound, the apportionment of casualties to different parts of the battle is quite arbitrary but necessary for the construction of a model. Later it will be seen that the casualty rates have implications for the way Roman fighting can be visualized.

and that is exactly the main point - you cannot assess the weapons alone and then create a whole theory about its use, if you dont take these simple things into account... Gladius was very deadly sword, yet actual casualty rates taken in battles was extremely low, yet that doesnt automatically mean it was due to low effectivity of Gladius.. NO. it was due to those simple human instincts, reluctance to get killed, reluctance to kill, and others...  i repeat, Humans are not machines.. they would not just stand and hack each other into pieces...

[Bryan]

I mentioned a page back that you'd have used info from Mark Grossman. LOL.

FYI, he's been largely discredited in the GWOT veteran community. Some of what he wrote still holds water, but his theory about reluctance to kill is completely and utterly wrong. Not only did many a combat veteran read his book before going into combat and then finding out it was mostly nonsense (I was in that category), but the core of his reluctance to kill theory is based on the research of SLA Marshall's Men Against Fire, and it turns out that Marshall was a fraud who plagiarized notes and made up interviews that he never conducted in order to support his bull theories. Marshall's research assistant said about 3/4 of the unit interviews didn't happen and when those that did Marshall never specifically asked anyone about who fired their weapon and who didn't. That 15-25% statistic from WWII is a complete and utter sham of a lie.

RAT, the perfect forum for slaying internet sacred cows.

[Fabricius Carbo]

In my experience the ordinary soldier will out themselves in harms way and kill to protect and support their oppos.
A soldiers loyalty is first and foremost to the mrn in their unit.
If they have to fight they fight as a unit out if loyalty.
How well they fight comes down to training and discipline. When you are in action training kicks in, you don't need to think about the why and what of it.

[JaM]

Fabricius Carbo: that's all nice, yet actual combat statistics gathered across the whole history say quite different thing... If it was like you say, we would never see soldier routing in the battle, fights would be until one side is completely wiped out... yet that is far from actual reality...

No matter how well trained you are, if you are in a situation that is futile, you would rout same way as those less trained.. and if you say you wouldn't, then look at how badly were Romans beaten by Hannibal, who managed to rout Roman legions multiple times, no matter if those men were veterans or rookies.. or, as David Grossman mentions in his books, you are one of those 2% of sociopaths within male population, who actually like killing and would do it with no hesitation, but then, you would be one of the killed on the battlefield, as those men usually didn't survived for long...

[Bryan]

Fabricius Carbo: that's all nice, yet actual combat statistics gathered across the whole history say quite different thing... If it was like you say, we would never see soldier routing in the battle, fights would be until one side is completely wiped out... yet that is far from actual reality...

No matter how well trained you are, if you are in a situation that is futile, you would rout same way as those less trained.. and if you say you wouldn't, then look at how badly were Romans beaten by Hannibal, who managed to rout Roman legions multiple times, no matter if those men were veterans or rookies.. or, as David Grossman  mentions in his books, you are one of those 2% of sociopaths within male population, who actually like killing and would do it with no hesitation, but then, you would be one of the killed on the battlefield, as those men usually didn't survived for long...

FYI, so other RAT readers can understand the context of the above post, here is some additional information that clarifies the discussion. 

"as David Grossman  mentions in his books" is the modern warfare equivalent of "as Dando-Collins mentions in his books".

[CNV2855]

If you were on the front line in a melee battle, killing the person in front of you would not make you safer, as a more rested and vigorous enemy would just take his place. No matter how many people you killed, until the entire enemy army routed, you were constantly in danger.

That would break even the strongest men. Prolonged fighting, like boxing, or trying to defeat someone in armor is probably very, very taxing. Unless you got a lucky hit in, fighting was probably a HUGE strain both physically and emotionally.

If you look at Carrhae in terms of men wanting to "back away" from the enemy a few feet, you see that people need room to maneuver to be comfortable fighting. When they all backed into one another and became a massive blob, they were slaughtered. They probably went down swinging, but not having "breathing room" probably resulted in their massacre.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I don't always agree with Bryan but on this topic, as someone who has also served in the military, I tend to agree with most of what he says.

What those who have never served in the military will perhaps not be able to ever understand is how 'conditioned' we are to fight. Right from the first day someone in the military joins up they start a period of conditioning. This is designed to make you obey orders without fail, even if said orders place you in immediate danger. I will never forget an RSM shouting at me when I dared to question something he had said- 'Coombs-Hoar, we pay you to fight, not to think!' And that's the whole point, the armed forces pay's its troops to 'do or die' and 'to never question why'. A lot of brutalising of the troops occurred whilst I was in the armed forces during the 1970's, NCO's would routinely beat up recruits and junior ratings, whom in turn would do the same to those who below them as they moved up the pecking order. Conditioning made you act without question, I remember well the times when we were rudely awakened at 2am at all times of the year, told to get our kit on and assemble on the parade ground in ten minutes before being bundled into a truck and driven off into the middle of nowhere and told to make our way back to base by 6am for breakfast which would end at 6.30am whether you got back at time or not. This level of conditioning unfortunately made us think of civilians as 'fair game' a lot of the time. To attempt to take our ire out on the NCO's or even worse the officers would lead to a sound thrashing plus a stint in the brig.

The effects of conditioning can be long lasting, for example it was at least two years before leaving the armed forces before I stopped waking up at 6am every day whether I had to or not. I still shower up to twice a day (in the Navy we were encouraged to shower three times a day) and I have never grown my hair longer than a 'No1' sides and backs!

Its conditioning that makes men do things that civilians cannot bring themselves to do, and its not something people who have not served in the Military can know anything about.

[Bryan]

Another problem with this topic in general is that its impossible to accurately describe ancient battle if you are not thinking in their mindset. For instance, if you want to understand Roman warfare, you need to think with virtus. One can't try to interpret ancient battles from the mindset of safety, risk aversion, or fear of physical confrontation, which are all hallmarks of modern society (not necessarily a bad thing either, in many ways). In any fight, whether it be fisticuffs at a bar, or in ambush in modern Iraq, or in a pitched battle in Gaul in 52 BC, fear is not something one is supposed to dwell on. Patton was a blustering fool in many ways but he said "My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me." This is a perfect example of the proper mindset for battle, because it means the fighter is going in to win, not to protect themselves.

All military culture is designed around instilling positivity before battle. Men are supposed to get a good night's sleep, they are supposed to be well fed for breakfast. Leaders of all sorts give frequent pep talks to the men, culminating in the famous general's address to the troops. Small unit leaders wouldn't stop encouraging the men, even into battle they would keep it up. And the orders wouldn't be "Be wary when killing the man in front of you, because there are many behind him and to win you need to go through all of them." That's the worst thing a soldier can think about and the worst advice a leader could give. It would be "Kill the man in front of you and those behind him will break when they see their mate slaughtered by your hand! One step to victory!" Not only does this mindset lead to bravery, but in reality it also leads to victory, because when the front rankers are the best fighters, and when they get slaughtered the men behind them are going to be a bit more hesitant to charge forward over their bodies for a taste of "getting it stuck in."

[JaM]

sorry, but what you are saying sounds like PTSD syndrome is then caused by a lack of training.. yet no psychologist would come with that conclusion, and its quite common to get PTSD even upon the best trained troops like SEALS or Delta.

But this is not just about PTSD, historical fighting is a lot different than today's "ranged" combat - nobody is expecting soldiers to kill each other from 1m distance anymore (yet situations like that might happen sometimes,but it's not a norm)

And even such a simple thing as battle statistics talks quite loudly against such ideas... I will repeat myself, but study made where historians compared all reported casualty rates shows that in direct combat with both sides fighting each other only 2-5.5% of casualties are taken for entirety of encounter, while defeated side is then usually massacred when it routs and tries to run away..  And we even have casualty rates from battles where Romans faced Romans so we can even exclude the possible tactical aspects, as pretty much both sides were using the same tactics, same weapons and usually have similar training, yet casualty rates were still in that area...

But let me go back to my original claim - Soldier fighting in melee would look for own survival first, he would not strike enemy from position that could be potentially dangerous to him.. Because if ancient soldiers were so reluctant to own life, why would they even carry shields...