Login

08-14-2001, 10:43 PM

In more modern times, men talk about how war is hell, and there are documented cases of men that are mentally messed up after they've been to war. Like in WWI, after they'd of been in the trenches awhile they'd get Shell shock syndrome. 
I have several questions..Are there any documents saying that the Romans would have gotten these types of syndrome? Would they become 'immune' to it, like the men that are in war for awhile get? Were there people in the ROman world like Hemmingway, that constently complained that war is hell.. 
I was thinking that men that were in Vietnam couldn't compare with the attrocity of seeing the blade of your gladius going through another man's neck. And, instead of 10's of thousands of men dying in a war, it would be that many in one battle? Oh well..perhaps maybe I'll just e-mail Caesar himself..lol 
Vale, 
C. Brianus

***Praefectusclassis*** · 08-15-2001, 04:40 AM

Hi Gaius, 
Don't know any references (which doesn't mean they don't exist), but as far as I know, the messed-up minds of modern war are caused in a large part by the continuous exposure to sudden death in the front lines. Days, weeks, months on end. Since ancient warfare was usually a ptiched battle of at most a few days, but usually only hours, the strain was undoubtedly very bad, but contained to a short period. 
But I may be wrong... 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper

JRSCline · 08-15-2001, 05:10 AM

Don't have any references to pull out of my hat, either, but my take is that people were generally much more familiar with the face of death and misery in ancient times than today. Even in the 19th century people were much more acquainted with mortality than we are today, shut off from it by the sterility of modern medicine and the rituals that we've erected around the dying process. No one wants to be reminded of the fact that death is all around us and it's shocking, I suppose, to be suddenly faced with your first live, up-close experience with death and the associated agony and decay. I know my first encounter with a bona fide corpse (and a very bloated, smelly one at that) was extremely memorable, if for no other reason than because it was the first. Ancient Romans would have been seeing people die on an almost routine basis, from disease, age, accidents, fights; that aspect -- death's true omnipresence -- would at least not seem to have been so upsetting. 
 
But I don't agree with the position that ancient battle was a quick if nasty process, quickly over and therefore presumably easier to get over; that might have been true in Greek hoplite warfare -- finish the summer and you're through -- but somehow the more intimate atrocity of putting sharp steel into another man's gut seems to me to be far more traumatic for both parties. Professional armies of any era stay in the field for months on end, and pitched battles or no, the experience was surely stressful in a cumulative way. 
 
Roman PTSD? Probably -- but "shell shock" (being reduced psychologically to a paralyzed bundle of nerves) probably not. Unlike the modern battlefield, where you can die pretty much anywhere you are (no haven's really out of range), in ancient battles, if you can run away, you conceivably can survive. Thus, routs happen (and somewhat like concert stampedes, this is when most of the casualties occur, at least for the losers). The body wants to react to stress -- fight or flight. It seems to me that if the body can neither fight nor flee, the stress is internalized and this is what contributes most to post-traumatic stress disorder. As for shell shock, it's doubtful that even the clamor of ancient battles could approximate the deafening noise, immediacy, and physical sensory assault that an artillery bombardment produces, so I would expect the incidence of Roman "shell shock" to be much less. 
 
Of course, these are all highly speculative statements and my humble opinion only. We're limited to theory and imagination; even literature can't describe the human crucible that is pitched battle. But at least I think it reasonable that Romans could be affected by short-term fear and long-term stress like any other human being, then or now. I do think the experience of ancient battle was distinctly different from the modern experience and for those interested to explore that, I'd highly recommend John Keegan's "The Face of Battle." 
 
Cheers, 
Jenny

***Praefectusclassis*** · 08-15-2001, 05:44 AM

Hmmm, we might set up an interesting discussion on how large a part of an Ancient Army really contibuted to the sticking of sharp steel in the enemy's guts. 
That is probably more stressfull that seeing a man in one's sights die, but still, from what I've read the continuous exposure to the horrors of the battlefield and especially the knowledge that you're never safe causes the worst long-time effects. Battle and shell shock are stressfull but can be overcome (or the effects can be diminished) by rest in a safe place. That's what was not possible (or extremely rare) in the trenches, bocage, jungle etc of WWI and WWII. 
 
Keegan's Face of Battle is indeed a great read, some others on the subject: 
Paul Fussel, Wartime. Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War (Oxford 1989) 
Richard Holmes, Acts of War. The Behavior of Men in Battle (New York 1985) 
Joanna Burke, An intimate history of Killing. Face-to-face killing in twentieth-century warfare (London 1999) 
 
Greets 
 
Jasper 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ujasperoorthuys.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Jasper Oorthuys</A> at: 8/15/01 7:45:38 am

Matthew Amt · 08-15-2001, 01:31 PM

Avete! 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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..." 
 
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. 
 
Good question, Brianus! 
 
Valete, 
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX

08-15-2001, 06:20 PM

Salve, 
 
Good point made on the diagnosis of PTSD and shell shock/battle fatigue as cowardous behaviour before and even after WW1. The herding and remorseless slaughter of people, like cattle, is however attributed by Keegan not to the settled societies, but to the horse nomads ( History of warfare, 179-217). This did not prevent the Romans though from building up a reputation for ferocity. There was little about terror that the Mongols could teach to the Roman state. 
 
After checking a number of references I find it hard to pinpoint anything that could resemble specific battle fatigue. There are plenty of complaints of troops engaged in long or arduous campaigning (Alexander's veterans in India, Roman troops in Spanish campaigns of the republic, mutineers of 14 CE), but these are caused by numerous reasons which do not seem to include battle fatigue as such. Troops could grow war weary and homesick, but I haven't yet traced dow a sign that more specifically conforms to battle fatigue. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Hibernicus · 08-15-2001, 07:05 PM

I know I know I know.... SCA fighting is NOT historical anything and tha there is no REAL fear of death etc etc etc.. but..... 
 
While commanding troops, and by most standards highly trained and disciplined troops, from time to time the shield wall line refused to advance into the enemy. No amount of yelling, cajoling or beating with my stick could get them to advance. 
 
This mind set usually occured near the end of a day of hard fighting (5 to 6 hours in armor having already fought 6 or so scenarios) , the men near to the point of complete exhaustion, a day in which the various scenarios were hard won or dearly lost. It usually involved a scenario that was crucial to win, a situation that got the adrenalin up, way way up... where the mouth got dry and the world seemed to be in slow motion, where all sound became deadened.... 
 
I rarely had a chance to see their faces but sometimes someone would turn about to see who was bellowing "Move!! MOVE!! " in his ear while shoving him forward and the guy would have a vacant look on his face. 
 
And all this 2 - 3 yards from an enemy who was cowering, expecting an onslaught of Romans. I believe that our hesitation in these situations, in a curious way, often worked to our advantage giving the enemy a chance to contemplate his own demise. 
 
They usually snapped out of it, all at once too. It often took something like shouting the battle cry, or sometimes I had to get out in front and lead the advance. 
 
Sean Richards 
 
Hibernicus 
Legio IX HispanaÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â®

Thiudareiks Flavius · 08-18-2001, 09:27 AM

This is certainly an interesting question. The idea of war causing long-term psychological effects on soldiers is familiar to us in the post WW1/WW2/Vietnam era, but I'm having trouble thinking of many examples from earlier periods. I recall one English aristocrat who fought in the Thirty Years War later spent his days building complex fortifications and defences out of sand and talked constantly of enemy attacks. IIRC correctly, his condition later deteriorated still further and he came to believe he was actually a dog, refused to enter the house and spent the rest of his days living with the other dogs in the households kennels. His family attributed his insanity directly to his experience of war, but that's the earliest example I can think of (seventeenth century) of what would now be considered a severe case of PTSD. 
 
I suspect most earlier warfare consisted largely of marching, manoeuvering and of very little actual sharp action, with only a proportion of the soldiers actually exposed to the pointy end of things. There was little constant danger from artillery, bombing, snipers, gas, chemical/biological, weapons or nukes or any of the other things that makes 20th/21st Century soldiering so dangerous and stressful. Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

08-18-2001, 06:15 PM

Then again, I've heard somewhere, probably from a teacher, that men who fought in the Crusades often would come back with PTSD type symptoms, though not as drastic as what we make it. However I'm glad that this topic took off like it did. 
 
Vale enim nunc! 
C. Brianus

Hibernicus · 08-20-2001, 12:16 PM

Thiudareiks Flavius write: 
"There was little constant danger from artillery..." 
 
Unless you happened to be facing a Roman Army...!! 
 
Sean Richards 
www.rlqm.com 
 
Hibernicus 
Legio IX HispanaÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â®

Jeroen Pelgrom · 09-18-2001, 07:12 AM

Hello, 
 
in the book Warfare in the classic world, the writers says that in the battles between the roman s and the Greeks, the Greeks suffered heavy psychological damage. This was caused becuase the Romans had a different type of warfare. The Greeks were more familiar with clean, small wounds due to the use of the phalanx (more pushing with large spears, little close combat). The Romans focused on close combat with special swords (with terrifing wounds such as chopped of limbs et cetera as a result). The writers says that the Greeks were not familiar with this type of warfare. 
 
greetings, Jeroen

06-07-2002, 04:42 PM

After I retired from the US Marine Corps, I was a County Veterans Service Officer for two years and noticed and then researched some amazing facts. 
(These may also be of import to the current discussion re Roman Battle Fatigue.) 
While a percentage of the men who have fought in America's wars since the Vietnam "Police Action" (Curse Kennedy and LBJ!) did in fact have immediate symptoms, the larger majority of the men afflicted indicated several years AFTER the war. (PLease keep this in mind as it figures in my point.) 
Also, there is an alarming percentage of Career Veterans who do NOT manifest until about two years AFTER (20 plus years of service) they leave/retire from the military. 
This indicates a "built in" resource which buffers them from the effects of the mental problems. 
That built in can be nothing else other than acceptance of a different reality while still serving in the ranks. 
Once dissassociated, or removed from the understanding or "normal" to the career military mind, environment, (and I am here to tell you that life "In the gates" is 1000% different from "Life out the gates") the issues which may trigger PTSD become more relevant and the veteran becomes more susecptable to PTSD. 
Point - because there is very little written evidance which remains to today which documents the incidence of PTSD does not mean that it didn't exist. Had a career trooper returned home and had mental problems, the family would not have been willing to have it engraved on his stone! (Neither do we, and what lasting medium of evidance would remain 2000 years from now of the mental disfunctions of a military members post service period?) Also, as most of these men faded back into the civil population base, why would their problems be of such a nature as would require "Graveing in stone" to document mental disfunction for posterity? 
Also, service in the Legions was a best a 20 year "Hitch" (No 2 year, 3 year, cruise there! Buddy, it was whole hog or stay home with those troops!) That extended service period may, then as now, have provided the mental buffer I spoke about earlier. 
I posit that men are men. They may have differing cultures, different mediums of communication, and technology may be different, but the human mind while it may be educated, is still the same in function now as it was for the troopers of Rome. While we may seem very primative 2k years from now, (If man lasts that long!) I believe that their thought processes and natural drives will remain the same. 
If WE have the problem, then it is probable within several decimal points that THEY did as well. 
That it is not documented lays purely in the realm of the passage of time and its destructive nature and in human nature itself, wherein we do our best to honor our dead as opposed to memorializing their shortfalls. 
As a closing comment, there is NOTHING in the world that can accurately describe the feeling of combat. I don't care who the author is, unless ya been there, ya don't know....trust me. I have an infinate amount of respect for the men of the Legions who did their work, "Up close and personal", As I do for any person, regardless of country or period who has faced the requirements of combat. War is getting there and getting ready, combat is earning your pay, and it aint worth all the gold in Fort Knox. Necessary evil. Nuff said.

Caius Fabius · 06-07-2002, 11:13 PM

Romans were very used to death in daily life, especially after the various "games", but just daily life. 
 
Most Roman veterans retired to be with other veterans. The modern guys I see with the most PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) went away from other vets, and don't have anyone to talk to, or share with. It is an exclusive club, that non-soldiers can't join. If you are around other members of "the club" who have shared experiences, you can hang. If you get out with people who can't share the experiences, PTSD seems to happen more often. Same thing with cops. You go to cop bars, or veterans' clubs or something to keep your head, as well as recreation with your "peers". Many groups of re-enactors seem to split along those lines, having two different social groups, the veterans and the non-veterans. 
 
(Side Note) It is really amusing to see civilian "shrinks" trying to "treat" PTSD. They can read all the books they want, but they can't share the experience. The best counselors seem to be other vets. 
 
Modern retired veterans (on average) have a decreased life expectancy. They get out of the military after 20-30 years, they stop exercising, they start eating lots and drinking lots and in a couple of years they're gone. We have to keep building more and more veteran's cemeteries. I wonder how many are failing to cope with delayed reactions to PTSD, and how many Roman retirees actually lived more than a couple of years after their retirement? 
 
Maybe the spanner in the works for American society is the guys that served only 3-10 years and get out, then in a couple of years start having PTSD, while trying to hold down a job, since they aren't retired.... 
 
And maybe this should all be in the off topic category.

06-08-2002, 03:45 AM

I think what Jenny and a few others stated in the earlier portions of this thread plays a large factor. How we look at death, how we deal with problems in today's society. We've become a lot softer, supposedly more compationate, and merciful. To my knowledge, it was a dog eat dog world in the hey day of our ancestors. So, my point is this. Would the average Roman soldier have given a damn about skewering Joe the Dacian on his gladius? I don't think he would. His entire upbringing and society was based on the success of it's army. Not to mention the fact that survival was a signifigantly higher, and more difficult aspect of life than it is now. They were adapted to a harsher life. 
 
Just a thought, but since all humans have a killer instinct (since we are animals, don't forget), perhaps society is partly to blame, along with modern weapons for the occurance of post traumatic stress? 
 
Not sure if this all makes sense, it's been a long week, and I should be in bed now. 
 
"Remember, pillage first....then burn." 
- First guy over the wall
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=tiberiuslantaniusmagnus>tiberius lantanius magnus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.myezboard.com/projects/ezboard/ezboard_userimages/romanarmytalk/images/Matt-L.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 6/8/02 5:48:47 am

06-08-2002, 05:58 AM

I think that there is a very important aspect of ancient warfare and Roman warfare in particular (since they were so incredibly good at it) that needs to be considered for this thread-- siege warfare. 
 
During an lengthy and difficult siege, I think it's quite possible if not inevitable that legionaries develop psychological conditions similar to PTSD. Think about it-- during a siege, a legionary would be exposed, for quite a long time, to virtually all the elements of modern warfare which are, for lack of a better phrase, mentally destructive. There would be the same constant exposure to danger- While assaulting or building siege works, the enemy would be shooting missiles at you, just like during a modern artillery bombardment (without the explosions, of course, unless you're watching Gladiator). Even when you're sleeping in camp, legionaries would constantly have to be on gaurd because of the very real danger of a nighttime sally. And, just as in modern war, there is nowhere to run during a siege. Everyone has to sit there in the shadow of the enemy works until the city is razed. 
 
I recently finished a very interesting book which deals with this subject in some detail-- "Ancient Siege Warfare," by Paul Bently Kern. I can provide publisher info and the ISBN if anyone is interested.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me