Thumbless Soldiers

[PerfectimusPrime]

I doubt that the archers needed to be exceptionally accurate, shooting at the direction of the enemy, with a proper arc was suffiecent. IMO.

 

No self respecting archer would want to be inaccurate. Unlike muskets, which were inherently awful, the arrow is a very accurate weapon indeed, as demonstrated by primitive cultures since the year dot.

 

In battle, where there's like 1000+ archers, you don't need to be that accurate. In fact, if you'd start to look for induvidual targets you'd probably be beated by your centurion.

Edited May 2, 2006 by PerfectimusPrime

[caldrail]

No not really. I accept that massed ranks offset the need to be accurate, but I think you'll find archery is more demanding than that. As I stated, an archer would want to be accurate - its a matter of professional pride.

 

As for the centurions, they'd be a bit busy to notice you were aiming. They might even approve. Perhaps its more likely they'd beat you for leaving your thumb behind!

[Sextus Tempanius]

Who's to say they cut off both thumbs instead of just the sword arm?

[Hitoriki Batosai]

[Try this: tape your thumb to your hand, then try to tie your shoe. :

 

 

Not only that but try going about your day as normal with a pop sicle stick taped to both of your thumbs. Its hard believe me. Then get into a sword fight with someone you trust and write. Good luck.

 

 

[Virgil61]

In order to get out of military service, many men would cut off their thumbs. The brother emperors, Valentinian I and Valens, did away with this loophole, and men had to serve, thumbs or no thumbs. Does anyone exactly how these men were trained to use their weapons, and how effective they were?

 

That's an interesting question that begs another, just how were they accepted by other soldiers?

 

I can't imagine much confidence by peers or leadership in someone who's actions show them out to be a coward to such an extent they'd chop an appendage off. It points to things being so bad just a warm body would suffice. I'd train them up--assuming a work around on the no-thumb thingy--and put the schmucks right up on the front line the first encounter we had with some sturdy troops right behind them.

[Neos Dionysos]

Who's to say they cut off both thumbs instead of just the sword arm?

 

So instead of just cutting off your thumbs, (which would still be a major change to your daily life), you'd rather cut off your arm? Just becaue you're right-handed, doesn't mean you cannot learn to use your left, so for that to work you'd have to cut off both arms which, without help is physically impossible. Besides, if you amputate your arm, you're probably die since these are mere provincials who would have no knowledge how to properly treat such a wound, and, even if they did stop the bleeding, they might develop gaingreen, etc.

 

In order to get out of military service, many men would cut off their thumbs. The brother emperors, Valentinian I and Valens, did away with this loophole, and men had to serve, thumbs or no thumbs. Does anyone exactly how these men were trained to use their weapons, and how effective they were?

 

That's an interesting question that begs another, just how were they accepted by other soldiers?

 

I can't imagine much confidence by peers or leadership in someone who's actions show them out to be a coward to such an extent they'd chop an appendage off. It points to things being so bad just a warm body would suffice. I'd train them up--assuming a work around on the no-thumb thingy--and put the schmucks right up on the front line the first encounter we had with some sturdy troops right behind them.

 

True, but how much confidence could you trust them with a front line job like that? I mean, if they're willing to cut of body parts to avoid basic service, who's to say once the meat meets the metal they just won't turn and run, and not only weaken the morale of your good troops, but possibly cause a terrible change in sitiuation that could cost the lives of many a good soldier. I'd think though they would be looked down upon very heavily and perhaps officers were smart to avoid inter-persecution by peers they placed them in rear units as groups so, instead of them being scattered, they are grouped and so they have a common bond at least. Might help with morale, might not...

[Lost_Warrior]

So instead of just cutting off your thumbs, (which would still be a major change to your daily life), you'd rather cut off your arm?

 

lol I don't think that's what Sextus meant I think he meant "Who's to say they cut off both thumbs instead of just the *one attached to the* sword arm?"

 

I asked the same thing earlier.

[Virgil61]

...

True, but how much confidence could you trust them with a front line job like that? I mean, if they're willing to cut of body parts to avoid basic service, who's to say once the meat meets the metal they just won't turn and run, and not only weaken the morale of your good troops, but possibly cause a terrible change in sitiuation that could cost the lives of many a good soldier. I'd think though they would be looked down upon very heavily and perhaps officers were smart to avoid inter-persecution by peers they placed them in rear units as groups so, instead of them being scattered, they are grouped and so they have a common bond at least. Might help with morale, might not...

 

Well first you're stuck with them in the unit, giving them a 'by' or a nice safer place in the rear will be noticed by other soldiers and resented. This gives other soldiers an idea that screwing up or cowardice is rewarded with a safer outcome. Again, you train them up and you assign some of your best troops to behind them; their choice fight or run into your own unit's swords. It's as much a message to 'good' troops as it is to the thumbless ones and word will tend to get out--don't chop your thumb off or it's the front line for you.

 

Whatever you do you do not form them all into their own unit unless you use shame or punishment as the reason. Isolating them as much as possible from each other's influence, putting them under the direction and training of trusted troops has the additional intangible of peer pressure and shame as a tool. Remember, again, you're stuck with these guys and letting them off to a cushier assignment aint' good for the morale of better soldiers.

[Neos Dionysos]

Well first you're stuck with them in the unit, giving them a 'by' or a nice safer place in the rear will be noticed by other soldiers and resented. This gives other soldiers an idea that screwing up or cowardice is rewarded with a safer outcome. Again, you train them up and you assign some of your best troops to behind them; their choice fight or run into your own unit's swords. It's as much a message to 'good' troops as it is to the thumbless ones and word will tend to get out--don't chop your thumb off or it's the front line for you.

 

Whatever you do you do not form them all into their own unit unless you use shame or punishment as the reason. Isolating them as much as possible from each other's influence, putting them under the direction and training of trusted troops has the additional intangible of peer pressure and shame as a tool. Remember, again, you're stuck with these guys and letting them off to a cushier assignment aint' good for the morale of better soldiers.

 

Right, but they are essentially cannon-fodder. They cannot fight as well as the good soldiers so you're wasting bodies... which would then need to be filled again, and with recruitment so bad you NEED to take thumbless soldiers I think you would hinder yourself more in the long run then helping in the short run. Besides, you can say it's a "cusiher job" but they could also be doing all the manual labor. Built the camps, repair walls etc, while the good soldiers avoid it, also, you need those good soldiers up front so besides manual labor, logistics is the only logical place I can see for the thumbless ones to be placed while actually getting some good work out of them.

[Virgil61]

...

Right, but they are essentially cannon-fodder. They cannot fight as well as the good soldiers so you're wasting bodies... which would then need to be filled again, and with recruitment so bad you NEED to take thumbless soldiers I think you would hinder yourself more in the long run then helping in the short run.

 

I assume some sort of work-around on the weaponry that allows them to handle effectively, if not then of course they're delegated to some support role.

 

I don't believe in 'cannon fodder' as the only approach. We're stuck with them--I'm not assuming 'vast numbers'--so some sort of approach is needed if you're the Centurion and Minimus the Thumbless shows up to your unit. Even most poorly motivated soldiers given the right training, attention and immersed in a proper environment can be made to perform satisfactory. I can't believe my own insights into soldier training from my own experiences weren't shared to some extent by veteran Roman soldiers.

 

Besides, you can say it's a "cusiher job" but they could also be doing all the manual labor. Built the camps, repair walls etc, while the good soldiers avoid it, also, you need those good soldiers up front so besides manual labor, logistics is the only logical place I can see for the thumbless ones to be placed while actually getting some good work out of them.

 

Trust me on this one, when you see the wounded and dead in a battle's aftermath digging ditches or whatever manual labor being done, is cushier than being under fire (or the sword in this case).

 

Edit: I do have to admit Neos I'm an old NCO who has acquired some strong opinions about training and soldier psychology that tend to determine my own approach on these issues.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Virgil61

[Pantagathus]

In order to get out of military service, many men would cut off their thumbs. The brother emperors, Valentinian I and Valens, did away with this loophole, and men had to serve, thumbs or no thumbs. Does anyone exactly how these men were trained to use their weapons, and how effective they were?

 

I think once the loophole was done away with, I imagine there wasn't a lot of thumbless people of military age running around...

[caldrail]

In order to get out of military service, many men would cut off their thumbs. The brother emperors, Valentinian I and Valens, did away with this loophole, and men had to serve, thumbs or no thumbs. Does anyone exactly how these men were trained to use their weapons, and how effective they were?

 

That's an interesting question that begs another, just how were they accepted by other soldiers?

 

I can't imagine much confidence by peers or leadership in someone who's actions show them out to be a coward to such an extent they'd chop an appendage off. It points to things being so bad just a warm body would suffice. I'd train them up--assuming a work around on the no-thumb thingy--and put the schmucks right up on the front line the first encounter we had with some sturdy troops right behind them.

 

Since thumbless individuals were not accepted for military service, soldiers would treat them with contempt. The whole point of cutting off thumbs is to avoid military service. Remember what happened with draft-dodgers during the vietnam war? It would have been no different then.

[Guest sprogg2001]

Can anyone tell me about self- mutilation to avoid service in the army. This is not limited to the Roman army or any specific culture I would like comparisons to other similar situations from any past civilisation from any time period.

 

I want to know how was it done, who would most likely perform this? Was it a DIY job or would a back alley surgeon perform it, what class of person would usually employ this method wealthy, poor, or nobility etc...

 

also the benefits or i.e. losing a thumb on the right hand would this prevent a soldier from fighting with a sword?, but you could still hand him a bow and have him fire it effectively. And why not just tell him to use his other arm

 

I know some of my questions may be naive but I know nothing about this grisly subject and want to know more.

 

Where the exempt recruits then ostracised from society? if it was wealthy noble family how would this play over in politics?

 

If self mutalation was not appropriate how did nobility or wealthy familys skip the draft besides for bribes.

Edited July 21, 2006 by sprogg2001

[Pantagathus]

This may be of some help as the topic was touched upon awhile ago in this thread: Thumbless Soldiers

 

 

 

EDIT: The thread mentioned here is now married to this new thread! Please just scroll back for more info!

[Gaius Octavius]

Pantagathus' referral is out. So I'll try a few answers.

It was mostly the rich who did this.

They could not be used in the infantry because they had to use their weapons in unison with the rest.

The cavalry would be out perforce. Can't use reins and weapons at the same time.

Without a thumb, one can't handle a bow, spear or gladius and a shield. The shield not only protects the holder, but also his mates.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Gaius Octavius