Legions/population

[Germanicus]

Considering what we know today of what turns a modern person into a Psychopath, or a serial killer. Do you think that Roman society would have had a higher proportion of these mental types ? Both in the Army and in the general population ? Because of what people witnessed in their early/formative years ?

 

I started thinking about it while reading Tacitus descriptions of the German legions uprising after the death of Augustus. Little Gaius as a small child was there, and may well have witnessed the troops dealing with the leaders of the mutiny in their own ranks, by hacking them to pieces one by one, and we know how little Gaius turned out.

 

Were children permitted entry to watch the games ?

[Germanicus]

A good theory ? Bad ? Done to death ? Come on, give me something !

[Primus Pilus]

Sorry Germanicus... I missed this thread.

 

Romans did not generally want children at 'adult' events. I don't believe this was as much a case of morality as it was simply because children weren't men and room had to be made for the more important adult members of society. Considering that women were generally not welcomed at such events, the absence of children also makes sense.

 

Since the average Roman went about their daily lives without a great deal of first hand knowledge regarding every day world events... unlike our own modern lives, I doubt they would've had a greater propensity for violence. The Roman culture may have been one which did promote some violent public displays, this wasn't the overwhelming daily spectacle that later propogandists would like to have us believe. Even if it was so we too are largely inundated with scenes of violence, etc. via the various forms of media, but the population of criminals as a percentage of the population still remains relatively low.

 

Certainly environment must play a part, but I'd be willing to bet that 'criminal behavior' as an element of the population would remain a fairly consistent percentage throughout 'civilized' history. Were there people in ancient times that today we might classify as 'serial killers' or 'sociopaths', etc? Considering the nature of humanity, I'd say without a doubt, but I do doubt that it was caused any more by the nature of Roman society as a whole vs. the individual environment and conditions of the individual.

 

I do agree the conditions which people like Caligula were subjected to very likely had an effect on his mental stability. Couple that with the corruptive and influential effect of absolute power given to a very young man and we can see the huge potential for disaster. While this may have had an effect on various prominent families, the average family was largely untouched by these political machinations.

[longbow]

Considering our soldiers today are allways going down with stress disorders because of what they witness during battles etc, i've often wondered about the mental state of the Legionaries.Did they all handle the stress in there stride or did some of them go nuts?was there any cases of suicides etc?

Does anyone have any ideas on the age of new recruits to the Legions?if you join the army at say 15(guess) and you serve the full term,you've probably witnessed a hell of a lot of death.

[Lost_Warrior]

I'm sure some of them didn't handle it well...though some of them probably handled it a bit *too well* by modern society's standards. Some probably loved it Battle can be fun...if you don't believe me ask anyone in the SCA or such...something about being up close and fighting...but then, I'm pretty nuts myself

[Ursus]

A good theory ? Bad ? Done to death ? Come on, give me something !

 

 

Didn't mean to ignore the thread as it's interesting, I just didn't know how to respond.

 

Consider these were times when a lot of people simply dropped dead because of plagues and starvation. Then there were the arena games, and public executions like Crucifixion. Imagine walking the Appian Way after the failed Spartacus revolt and seeing miles of rotting corpses hanging on crosses. What a sight, especially for the young.

 

These were times when life was cheap and death ubiquitous. But then most of these people with their pagan faiths ultimately believed the souls of the dead were still around somewhere to exert a power on the living. Death may have had a different meaning to ancient people than to moderns. For that matter life may have had a different meaning.

 

I think understanding the effects on ancient society on human psychology requires a shift in perspective to understand the nature of pre-modern psychology. If violent deaths are commonplace perhaps it is simply not as much of a shock to the system as in cultures where it's considerably rarer.

[Germanicus]

If violent deaths are commonplace perhaps it is simply not as much of a shock to the system as in cultures where it's considerably rarer.

 

Yes, good point. People must have had a different perspective from a very young age. No doubt your parents would raise you differently in a society where life was cheap. It's really hard to arrive at a difinative answer, but I guess one could use children growing up on the West Bank or Gaza as a modern example ? I'm sure there are studies into the mental health of these children, haven't seen any though.

 

I must emphasise that I am not interested in this from a moral perspective. I don't see it as either right or wrong, just interested in the facts.

[Sextus Roscius]

I don't believe that Roman soceity and culture had any more to do with the mental state of the average person compared to the actual conditions they were in personaly.

 

Like Primus Pilus said, the average Roman had a lot less knowledge about what was going on in the world considering that they didn't have T.V., radio, or the internet, they had to rely on source of mouth for most of their information. Only the Nobility, and even not all of them, would have been knowning what was going on world wide. However, even these patricians could only get information of something a day to several weeks after it had already happened becuase everything had transported by boat or road. Both where incredibly lengthy depending on how far away the information source was.

 

I think that most people would've not been affected by the ovious violence in roman culture becuase quite simply they grew up in it which would've made them acustom to violence or hate. Wheras now adays, parents are constantly sheilding their child from the "horrors" of soceity which can be the cause of kids and adults alike being so flabergasted by things to day which really aren't that bad.

 

There are obvious excpetions such as Caligula, but who can blaim him. I would have gone insane too if I was him. But more likely killed by tiberius....

 

All said I think there was no more or less pychopathes and lunatics than there are today because the culture they were in was the same through their entire life.

[Germanicus]

Thanks for the responses, I remain undecided.

 

Like Primus Pilus said, the average Roman had a lot less knowledge about what was going on in the world considering that they didn't have T.V., radio, or the internet, they had to rely on source of mouth for most of their information. Only the Nobility, and even not all of them, would have been knowning what was going on world wide. However, even these patricians could only get information of something a day to several weeks after it had already happened becuase everything had transported by boat or road. Both where incredibly lengthy depending on how far away the information source was.

 

This wasn't my point - I just used the Gauis Germania thing as an example of a child witnessing slaughter, but thanks.

 

Ursus is onto what I meant - IE - things people actually witnessed, like travelling up the Appian way after the crucifiction of 5000 slaves, witnessing a guy being scourged to death outside the Colline gate, witnessing someone being thrown from the Tarpeien Rock SPLAT!

 

I think understanding the effects on ancient society on human psychology requires a shift in perspective to understand the nature of pre-modern psychology

 

I totally agree. Its something thats really hard to do with the ancient resources we have.

[Pertinax]

I was just reading a small piece about a letter sent by a Roman Military Doctor to his parents, apart from combat casualties he makes particular mention of "combat fatigue" whilst dealing with the wounded (p53 of the Osprey Imperial Legionary 161-284). The biggest factor in the actuallity of combat at this time would be that the battlefield was not "dispersed" as it presently is in response to the lethality of present day weapons,the combat would also be utterly personal-no shooting at a faceless blob from half a mile away,(stressful enough but in a very different way).

So,if you were on active duty you might well see a lot of close up violent death .I suggest that nowadays the general population consider death to be a remote and calamitous thing that happens as some sort of terrible mistake. We know that rural recruits were often considered better material for soldiering being accustomed to hard outdoor work, I would also suggest that unlike today most of these people would have killed animals for food (most people now have never even skinned a rabbit) and seen death often in daily life and lives frequently curtailed (chilbirth in particular). So id suggest that perhaps death would be no more welcome then as now but it would be understood to be immanent and not a cruel accident of nature.

We know that medical care in the Legions was often much better than for the plebians and food supply was more asured,if I remember rightly life expectancy was also longer for retired soldiers than normal civilians.

I suggest then that things might look brutal through modern eyes but perhaps what we consider brutal would be considered to be the reality of life. I just wonder what modern media coverage of endless disasters and wars does to a civilian population who in the past would hear about earthquakes perhaps a year or two after the event.

Wandered off a little there but any thoughts?