[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[Bryan]

Here is a great article written by RAT's own Ross Cowan:

Roman Warriors: The Myth of the Military Machine

[Tane Gurnick]

Hi guys. I'll just add my 2 cents worth with a book recommendation. Lt.col. Dave Grossman book "on combat " it is a book on the psychological effects of ancient and modern warfare. Very detailed. I got Dave's audio book. He talks about enuculation against the stress warfare can only come from continuous realistic training and experience

[Bryan]

Hi guys.  I'll just add my 2 cents worth with a book recommendation. Lt.col. Dave Grossman book "on combat " it is a book on the psychological effects of ancient and modern warfare. Very detailed. I got Dave's audio book.    He talks about enuculation against the stress warfare can only come from continuous realistic training and experience

I'd be wary of using Grossman as a source. Much of his work about the hesitancy of man to kill one another was based on the works of S.L.A. Marshall, who has been subsequently discredited for falsifying interview questions and answers. In addition, he puts a lot of emphasis on behavioral conditioning, which was all the rage in the 20th century military, especially post WWII. But Romans didn't understand the science behind behaviorism, not in the scientific approach that Grossman explains training now in his books and presentations. 

In addition, many Roman armies for most of the Republic didn't conduct any training. They were levied, organized into legions, lines, and maniples, then marched directly to their theater of operation. Individual training would have taken place as young men and boys under the tutelage of male family members. Commanders, be they consuls or praetors, or even military tribunes, might institute something like unit training, but it was rare. No standardized formal drill was conducted in many armies, suggesting a method of warfare that didn't require training to perform. Formal standardized individual training caught on during the Late Republic when Romans suffered from a new class of recruits who hadn't been raised properly so they didn't know the martial skills (either because all male relatives were doing military service while they grew up, or because they were Proletariat), in addition to more capable enemies who required extensive training in order to defeat (Numantines, Jugurtha, Cimbri Terror) all required heavy training and major reforms to defeat the enemy.

[Hasdrubal]

Here is a great article written by RAT's own Ross Cowan:

Roman Warriors: The Myth of the Military Machine

Which article in which ancient warfare magazine was that written in?

[Renatus]

Which article in which ancient warfare magazine was that written in?

Roman Warriors - The myth of the 'military machine', Military History Monthly, December 2012, 35-40.

[Tane Gurnick]

Hi guys.  I'll just add my 2 cents worth with a book recommendation. Lt.col. Dave Grossman book "on combat " it is a book on the psychological effects of ancient and modern warfare. Very detailed. I got Dave's audio book.    He talks about enuculation against the stress warfare can only come from continuous realistic training and experience

I'd be wary of using Grossman as a source. Much of his work about the hesitancy of man to kill one another was based on the works of S.L.A. Marshall, who has been subsequently discredited for falsifying interview questions and answers. In addition, he puts a lot of emphasis on behavioral conditioning, which was all the rage in the 20th century military, especially post WWII. But Romans didn't understand the science behind behaviorism, not in the scientific approach that Grossman explains training now in his books and presentations. 

In addition, many Roman armies for most of the Republic didn't conduct any training. They were levied, organized into legions, lines, and maniples, then marched directly to their theater of operation. Individual training would have taken place as young men and boys under the tutelage of male family members. Commanders, be they consuls or praetors, or even military tribunes, might institute something like unit training, but it was rare. No standardized formal drill was conducted in many armies, suggesting a method of warfare that didn't require training to perform. Formal standardized individual training caught on during the Late Republic when Romans suffered from a new class of recruits who hadn't been raised properly so they didn't know the martial skills (either because all male relatives were doing military service while they grew up, or because they were Proletariat), in addition to more capable enemies who required extensive training in order to defeat (Numantines, Jugurtha, Cimbri Terror) all required heavy training and major reforms to defeat the enemy.

True ? ok. awesome amount of knowledge you have shown .  that's why I joined this forum .

[JaM]

great video on this topic from Lindy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs

[Bryan]

great video on this topic from Lindy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs

As soon as he mentioned SLA Marshall I tuned out, because Marshall's studies were bogus, he faked the unit interviews in order to support his theory. Numerous infantry leaders told him strait out afterwards that they didn't believe his study was true, they saw the opposite. In Korea and Vietnam, when historians who weren't Marshall conducted actual unit interviews they found that over 90% of the troops were firing their weapons at the enemy. I was in Iraq as an infantry, I saw almost nobody that refused to shoot, the opposite really, where people wanted to. The few times they didn't it was usually because they were waiting on a command from a junior NCO because the individual didn't possess initiative, but even that was rare (since initiative is encouraged in the US military).

[Densus]

The beauty of helmet cams and embedded journalists is the myth that the majority of soldiers being reluctant to kill the enemy can be laid to rest once and for all. Two examples here that hopefully won't cross the line as there is only a fleeting glimpse of a body in the first one and the second one stops before they start pulling the enemy dead out of the ditch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqz5Yi4K5uU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVihVeZtQds

Hopefully they will also kill off the idea from earlier in the thread (or possibly the other one) that soldiers don't expose themselves to risk to close with and destroy the enemy.

[JaM]

"Hopefully they will also kill off the idea from earlier in the thread (or possibly the other one) that soldiers don't expose themselves to risk to close with and destroy the enemy. "

sorry but if that was not true, then Ancient soldiers would not carry shields. Shield is a perfect example where soldier prefers own protection over ability to attack enemy unhindered.. unless you wanna suggest 5-7.5kg heavy shield was no hindrance to movement...

Whole notion of using armor, or even fighting in formation comes form that notion.. to not expose themselves unnecessarily to enemy attacks.. But i guess you would also advocate Hollywood view of melee combat with every men "fighting a duel" ignoring his surroundings, right? screw the formations, shields weapons with longer and longer reach, who needs them? all you wanna do is to kill kill kill.. like a brainless zombie... and then you read some historical sources about battle losses and you will find out extremely low casualty rates from actual combat...


And of course, if everybody was so willing to attack the enemy, disregarding own protection, then how exactly routs happened? why would anybody rout if he doesn't care about being hurt? humans are not robots, they wont fight each other until destroyed.


If will to attack was so much stronger than own defense, then how you wanna explain simple fact, that in 18-19.century, during age of bayonet, when no soldier wore any effective protection against it, THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE BATTLE WHERE TWO UNITS WOULD FIGHT EACH OTHER WITH BAYONETS IN OPEN FIELD... not a single one... Bayonets we commonly used in fights in broken terrain, entrechments etc where one side had defensive advantage, but not a single fight happened in open terrain... soldiers didnt like the idea that enemy might hit them with the bayonet same way they could hit him.. typically when two units met in open field, one side would just rout before any contact was made...

[Densus]

You are taking this to ridiculous extremes. Nowhere have I suggested anything about individual duels, disregard for protective equipment or brainless zombies. What I am saying is the idea that the majority of soldiers huddled behind their shields hoping they wouldn't get hurt while a minority of psychopaths did the actual fighting seems ridiculous to me. It most definitely isn't true now and I see no reason why it would have been true then.

Every time a soldier moved his shield to thrust with a weapon, he took a risk. Every time he took a step forward to get inside the killing area of an opponent with a longer weapon, he took a risk. If individual soldiers didn't take those risks, and just hoped that the psycho three files down was doing enough for all of them, then the Roman would not have bothered training thousands of people. They would have just have had a selection process to find out who the nutters were and trained everyone else how to use a shield to protect the tent party maniac..

[JaM]

yes, i took it to extreme, because the other thing sounds an extreme to me too.. Nobody said normal soldiers would hide behind shields doing nothing.. they would just not attack carelessly, with no regard to own protection, provided by shield, formation, or weapon used. Instead, they would take "calculated risks", attacking from protected position, whenever opportunity occurred.
Plus, to every sane commander, troops that keep cohesion, stay in formation are more valuable than some psychos who would charge into enemy disregarding everything around them...

[Bryan]

You are taking this to ridiculous extremes.  Nowhere have I suggested anything about individual duels, disregard for protective equipment or brainless zombies.  What I am saying is the idea that the majority of soldiers huddled behind their shields hoping they wouldn't get hurt while a minority of psychopaths did the actual fighting seems ridiculous to me.  It most definitely isn't true now and I see no reason why it would have been true then.

Every time a soldier moved his shield to thrust with a weapon, he took a risk.  Every time he took a step forward to get inside the killing area of an opponent with a longer weapon, he took a risk.  If individual soldiers didn't take those risks, and just hoped that the psycho three files down was doing enough for all of them, then the Roman would not have bothered training thousands of people.  They would have just have had a selection process to find out who the nutters were and trained everyone else how to use a shield to protect the tent party maniac..

To add, even being nearby to the enemy carried high risks, the Romans were not the only ones who cross armed infantry with close range weaponry (swords) and javelins, most contemporary enemy did the same so Roman infantry would be "in the thick of it" before they actually crossed swords with anyone. 

However, I will say that I believe that the exuberances of the average Roman (who after all were conscripted during most of Rome's history) would not all be equal. They wouldn't be the terrified men afraid to kill that Marshal and Grossman were wrong about, they just might not be very motivated to fight, their morale might not be high, they might not have confidence in their fighting abilities (not helped since most Roman armies before the Late Republic didn't train their men), or their aggression levels might not be too high in comparison to the maniacs that every century would have a few of (before they either died or won valorous awards and were promoted to centuries of the primus ordines).

[JaM]

If your mentality is to kill the enemy no matter what, you would definitely not bring a "wall" with you to do that.. and Scutum or Aspis is that wall practically.. instead you would bring s target shield or nothing at all..

and regarding motivation, you are wrong on that behalf - early Republican legions were formed from motivated citizens, those who had something to lose if war was lost.. (just look how these men fare against Pyrrhus, with his phalangites and elephants... all these things previously unknown to them) the whole idea to not enlist the poor was exactly because they would not fight hard enough, as they had nothing... so if there was a time when Romans would be not motivated enough, it would be the late Republic period, after Marius took proletarii into legions. Which is the reason why civil wars could even happen - each legion was more loyal to its commander than to the Republic itself..

[Bryan]

If your mentality is to kill the enemy no matter what, you would definitely not bring a "wall" with you to do that.. and Scutum or Aspis is that wall practically.. instead you would bring s target shield or nothing at all..

and regarding motivation, you are wrong on that behalf - early Republican legions were formed from motivated citizens, those who had something to lose if war was lost.. (just look how these men fare against Pyrrhus, with his phalangites and elephants... all these things previously unknown to them) the whole idea to not enlist the poor was exactly because they would not fight hard enough, as they had nothing... so if there was a time when Romans would be not motivated enough, it would be the late Republic period, after Marius took proletarii into legions. Which is the reason why civil wars could even happen - each legion was more loyal to its commander than to the Republic itself..

You're making the error of believing some Roman department of defense design team is what decided what shield infantry would use. It didn't work that way. Culturally, there were two shields Romans used for infantry. The clipeus was identical to the aspis, it provided suitable protection in close quarters but was expensive and hard to make and did not offer any protection to the head or legs. The scutum was cheaper and easier to make and did offer protection to the head and legs, especially against missile threats. A target shield offers crap protection against missiles, something that every infantryman will encounter as they make their way to the place and time where they can poke at each other with pointy objects. To kill the enemy one must survive the arrow, javelin, sling stone rain to reach the enemy. A more protective shield allows for it, as long as its not too big, and then a rebuke comes from someone like Scipio Aemilianus. 

You conclusion that motivated citizens means fighting hard is incorrect, there are plenty of times in Roman history where conscripted Romans performed poorly in battle. Conscripts by and large do NOT fight as effectively as volunteers, which is why evocatii and veteran units (where all the shirkers are attrited out) were in such a high demand. A conscript might fight out of duty and responsibility, a volunteer fights because they truly want to be there. One is more valuable than the other.