Psychology of Legionnaries

[Caius Maxentius]

I know few ancient texts commented a great deal on rank-and-file men in any detail, but I've often wondered about how the legionnaries coped with the kind of life they had to lead. After Marius, killing became the life's work of a professional soldier, and between the harsh discipline and the kinds of battle experience they had, I wonder how severely post-traumatic stress disorder haunted these men. Or did most of them build thick enough skins to sleep ok at night?

 

I also wonder how they would have interacted socially with civilians during downtime. Was such social contact even commonplace?

 

Has their been any research on legionnaries' psychological lives?

[Lost_Warrior]

Good questions!!

 

I don't know of any such research, but maybe Caldrail will know? Caldrail you around?

[Maty]

Oke - a couple of points. (All my humble opinion, so I'm not pretending this is gospel)

 

Firstly, post traumatic stress is very much a 20th century thing, in part at least caused by people killing despite a deep-seated belief that this is wrong. (In wwII it was shown that a majority of soldiers shot to miss) Also the sheltered age we live in gives us a belief in our personal immortality (how many corpses have YOU seen?) and a lot of the rest of the trauma comes from having that belief challenged. I strongly doubt legionaries shared this mindset - war was glorious and a fact of life and killing the enemy was good right and proper, furthermore death happened all the time around you, pretty much at random.

 

Secondly, except in exceptional times, most soldiers did not spend all their time fighting. Some legions literally (e.g. III Augusta) went centuries without a serious punch-up. And when there was a major punch-up the shock was mitigated by being shared by most of the community - which is why the world did not go into collective psychological shock after WWII.

 

Soldiers did interact with civvies in downtime - look up cannabae in Pauly or on the web. Every legionary camp had places outside the walls - in the words of one writer - potare, amare, lavare. i.e. for wine women and a wash, not necessarily in that order. Also many soldiers (as we know from e.g. the vinlandola letters) kept in reasonably close contact with their families (civilians) and from papyri in Egypt we know that some soldiers also routinely ran protection rackets on the local civilians.

 

Finally on retirement soldiers had the option of reintegrating into the civilian community (often by buying into a business with their substantial pension) or sometimes settling abroad with fellow vets in a military colony.

[Caius Maxentius]

Firstly, post traumatic stress is very much a 20th century thing, in part at least caused by people killing despite a deep-seated belief that this is wrong. (In wwII it was shown that a majority of soldiers shot to miss) Also the sheltered age we live in gives us a belief in our personal immortality (how many corpses have YOU seen?) and a lot of the rest of the trauma comes from having that belief challenged. I strongly doubt legionaries shared this mindset - war was glorious and a fact of life and killing the enemy was good right and proper, furthermore death happened all the time around you, pretty much at random.

 

Good point. Death would have touched everyone's lives much more then than it does ours today.

 

Soldiers did interact with civvies in downtime - look up cannabae in Pauly or on the web. Every legionary camp had places outside the walls - in the words of one writer - potare, amare, lavare. i.e. for wine women and a wash, not necessarily in that order. Also many soldiers (as we know from e.g. the vinlandola letters) kept in reasonably close contact with their families (civilians) and from papyri in Egypt we know that some soldiers also routinely ran protection rackets on the local civilians.

 

What era do the Vindolanda letters come from? I'm guessing the quality of civilian interaction changed between the late Republic and the 4rth Century AD, when a hereditary military class had become entrenched.

[Maty]

Ave Caius

 

I was looking at this when doing Legionary - my next opus I spent a lot of time on this website which can, I think, answer your questions much better than I...

 

http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/exhibition/people-2.shtml

 

Felix Saturnalia!

[caldrail]

I know few ancient texts commented a great deal on rank-and-file men in any detail, but I've often wondered about how the legionnaries coped with the kind of life they had to lead. After Marius, killing became the life's work of a professional soldier, and between the harsh discipline and the kinds of battle experience they had, I wonder how severely post-traumatic stress disorder haunted these men. Or did most of them build thick enough skins to sleep ok at night?

 

I also wonder how they would have interacted socially with civilians during downtime. Was such social contact even commonplace?

 

Has their been any research on legionnaries' psychological lives?

 

The Romans were not unique in the ancient world for brutality. In fact, the only reasons they have such a reputation for it is becuase of the scale and entertainment of it. That was their culture. These ancient people, not just the latins themselves, grew out of violent tribal cultures existing in Europe.

 

The broad range of personalities is probably no different than it was back then, but they were born into cultures that admired and tolerated aggression. The Roman way of life was inclusive of macho thuggishness. Their sports, partly inherited from the greeks, were violent. Its that risk of injury that made competitors 'heroes' or admirable at least.

 

In military circles, we see the Romans exploiting these martial qualities of various peoples, including their own. They also developed methodologies that parallel modern ones, in that men were taught to act obediently and kill by command. Women and children were not exempt if the order was given. So what can we conclude? Roman soldiers were not generally guilty about their actions. They had acted under orders (usually) and had done their duty. The dead were dead and the living survived to enjoy life. We also notice that Roman soldiers commemorated their fallen with expensive tombstones. That death was all around them was accepted, and indeed, the Romans were comfortable with the idea that life was short and ever present - what choice did they have?

 

The superstitious nature of Roman soldiers must also have played a part. It was the will of the gods that a man meets his end as much as human decision and action. Auguries taken before battle tell us that the Romans were asking the gods how things will turn out, that it wasn't just their own skill and experience at work.

 

The upshot of all of this is a situation where men predisposed to violence are dehumanised in a harshly disciplined regime. The legions got men to bond - the whole point of the conterburnium "Close friends", the eight man group who were always billetted together. There was a feeling of brotherhood within the legions and indeed, they refer to each as 'Brother' frequently. These men were living in a world apart from the society they lived amongst. Although its true the legions had regular contact with civilians who traded and depended on the military for their living, there was also an uneasy side to it, as we know the Roman soldiers were not above theft or intimidation to get what they wanted.

 

The nature of warfare in ancient times is much closer to basic animal confrontation than todays battles. Men fought in 'packs', using items that simulated claws and teeth, using items to protect themselves from this violence. Ultimately, when melee began, it was you versus the man in front of you. The human psyche is capable of this activity without any great psychological harm, but what we can't ignore is the 'ritual' side of human behaviour. Animals tend to have these rituals to avoid physical harm in confrontations. Humans deliberately choose to harm others as a means of winning these confrontations, and since rituals take time to develop, the faster-changing human cultures make this difficult to achieve, thus violence becomes an ordinary way of achieving success, so ultimately the individual tends to rationalise his actions to absolve any guilt.

 

What the Romans did not suffer was the 'total war' of modern times. They moved across country in columns of men, not as widely dispersed troops fighting every inch of the way against an enemy they generally can't see. Whilst its true that ambushes were a frequent part of ancient warfare, so were the cavalry screens sent out to avoid them, and the sense of situational isolation we see in modern conflict rarely occured in Roman times.

 

If you doubt the underlying strength of attitude and cultural disposition, notice the civil disorder in some parts of the world today. When these people adopt violence, they find psychological power in it, and rapidly become used to the effects of the violence they commit.

 

Addendum - I should note that in the Jewish War of c. ad72, the Roman legionaries who broke into Jerusalem began to loot and kill freely as Romans always did in these circumstances. They did however, according to Josephus, become so tired of the killing in huge numbers that eventually they stopped, rounding up any survivors for sale as slaves to Egypt as labourers or to provincial arenas as victims of the games.

Edited December 27, 2008 by caldrail

[Titus Pinarius Natta]

In wwII it was shown that a majority of soldiers shot to miss)

 

Just curious. Where did you find this information?

[Titus Pinarius Natta]

So, let me try to understand the basic points being made. Because of the context in which the average Roman soldier lived, they were not susceptible to PTSD. Does that summarize the point?

[Maty]

So, let me try to understand the basic points being made. Because of the context in which the average Roman soldier lived, they were not susceptible to PTSD. Does that summarize the point?

 

Basically, yes. Though some future breakthrough might prove us wrong. PTSD is not a given for everyone who has been in highly stressful situations, and maybe some legionaries did so suffer, but even as today, they would have been a minority.

 

I got the statistic on wwII kill ratios many years ago when I got into psychology in Oxford - cant remember from where. However, have a look here

 

http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm

 

and particularly the book recommended if you want to follow this up. Incidentally, there is also a correlation between the intelligence of the individual and willingness to kill in war. Apparently a higher IQ makes you a better killer.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

Edited March 12, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Basically, yes. Though some future breakthrough might prove us wrong. PTSD is not a given for everyone who has been in highly stressful situations, and maybe some legionaries did so suffer, but even as today, they would have been a minority.

Hand to hand combat isn't necessarily stressful. Many human beings enjoy fighting (though it doesn't suit everyone). The modern war is a different enviroment. The risk is ever present although most soldiers soon learn to dismiss that kind of thought. The noise however is another matter. Shellfire, especially after a prolonged exposure, can have very bad effects on peoples state of mind, something the Roman soldier did not have to contend with. Airmen sometimes 'lose their nerve' after constantly exposing themselves to danger. Romans were just as susceptible to PTSD as we are, but there was less to cause it back then.

 

I got the statistic on wwII kill ratios many years ago when I got into psychology in Oxford - cant remember from where. However, have a look here

I can assure you that soldiers do not shoot to miss, and such a practise never occured in WWII. It may well be that much firing was essentiially random since the enemy had the incovenient habit of hiding from your fire, but even that served a purpose. It persuaded the enemy to stay hidden so your side could advance without being hit by aimed fire. In fact, the majority of firefights in WWII took place at something less than 500 metres - since the enemy were not keen on being spotted in the first place and that ambushes tend to be more effective is staged at close range. Further, because of the difficulty of sighting enemies, its also common for soldiers to shoot at areas they believe harbours enemy troops whether it does or not. Plenty of AA fire was directed at Venus for instance, troops thinking the light in the sky was an enemy aeroplane.

 

Incidentally, there is also a correlation between the intelligence of the individual and willingness to kill in war. Apparently a higher IQ makes you a better killer.

A more willing or more capable killer? Its more to do with social conditioning, experience, and necessity. I knew a chap at work who had once been jailed for soccer violence. Although a reformed character, he was somewhat rambuctuous (I love that word) and would play aggressively at the drop of a hat. He was also very quick and calm in violent situations. None too bright though, but he didn't get many arguments. However, I will concede that since people with higher IQ's find acceptance more difficult, there is a risk they become more amenable to psychopathic behaviour.

[Maty]

"I can assure you that soldiers do not shoot to miss"

 

If I might use some anecdotal evidence, in the Mrewa district of then Rhodesia in 1978, some insurgents attacked a farm outbuilding in which five men guarding the farm were billeted. The attackers took their firing position in some feeding pens about seventy metres away. In the course of about a ninety minute firefight some 2,600 rounds were exchanged (the guards would probably have fired off more, but they only had 2000). Relieving troops (of which I was one) were slow to arrive because they were in vehicles and there were landmines to consider, and the insurgents pulled back in their own time.

 

In the course of the above exchange, not only were there no casualties, but neither building was hit. Admittedly the action was at night, but it does suggest that not all soldiers are committed killers. And there is a big difference between fighting and killing.

 

On the other hand, for the close up and personal bit I know of an officer who had the drop on a bunch of confused teenagers with AK47s who walked right into his kill zone. They were less than 20m away, rather than 500. He just kept shouting at them to surrender while they ran away.

 

I suspect that if legionaries did get PTSD it would be in those situations where they were forced to recognize the humanity of the people they were killing. This is where fearsome enemy warriors in anonymizing helmets would help to make the process less personal. Also doing something they had been intensively trained to do (fight as a group in close formation) would, I guess, have been a lot less stressful than say, nailing people to a crucifix. I'm still guessing here, but I suppose the more intelligent an individual, the more he can rationalize what he is doing.

 

Also I understood that PTSD does not necessarily manifest itself in forms that are mistakeable for cowardice. It can also appear as odd behaviour- sometimes even extremely violent and confrontational behaviour, paralysis or an uncontrollable twitch. It is indeed possible that some legionaries collected the full set, and at this distance in time it's hard to know how common this was, but I think a consensus is emerging from the discussion that the circumstances of modern warfare and society make PTSD much more likely today.

[caldrail]

Well this isn't really the forum to discuss modern firefights, but the fact some insurgents were shooting wildly still doesn't mean they were shooting to miss. Thats a ridiculous assertion because deliberately missing the target is pointless. They were shooting toward the assumed target area even if they were unable to shoot at a target. The reason is they don't want to get hit, so prefer to rely on volume of fire (always a bugbear with modern automatic fire) rather than standing there taking aim and thus exposing themselves to risk.

 

Statistics in this case is misleading because it's assumed by the men shooting that not all rounds will their target - but that if they fire with enough weight then some rounds will, on average, hit something. It works. It goes on every day around the world.

 

Of course the value of discipline and training in battle is as important in modern firefights as it was in Roman melee. So some inexperienced teenagers ran away when confronted close up? They clearly had no leadership nor background of close melee, nor I suspect, any convenient means to fight other than their trusty AK's which they generally used at a distance. Statisitcs don't tell you that, but it really is an important point.

 

The Romans of old were trained to fight close up. Their enemies were brought up to do something similar although often relied more on bravado and longer swords. But sometime around the beginning of the fourth century the good old gladius had been dropped to be replaced by a longer spatha, a trend that had begun earlier. The reason was training had declined and people were less keen to fight so close. I know its only a matter of inches, but believeme , human beings have personal 'danger zones' and getting too close in a fight is uncomfortable, people much prefer to fight at the edge of their reach. Which incidential;ly, is what happened with those teenagers. Meeting an enemy they considered too close for 'safe' combat was too much for them.

 

The same sort of thing happens in Roman times especially in the presence of cavalry. Roman horsemen did not close in unless they had a situational advantage, whereas the dominance of later cavalry began when horsemen started increasing their intimidation factor by riding right up to enemy troops as a matter of course. This was one of the reasons for the Gothic success at Adrianople for instance. The Romans backed off... and got confused.... and some really did manage to run away, as Saturninus did with his men. The remaining survivors couldn't run away until nightfall and really only began to fight back when they realised they would die there if they didn't break out.

[Maty]

Of course the value of discipline and training in battle is as important in modern firefights as it was in Roman melee. So some inexperienced teenagers ran away when confronted close up? They clearly had no leadership nor background of close melee, nor I suspect, any convenient means to fight other than their trusty AK's which they generally used at a distance. Statisitcs don't tell you that, but it really is an important point.

 

You miss the point. Those teenagers were in a kill zone. They had no chance. The relevant part is the officer who *should* (for a given value of should) have opened the proceedings by shooting one of those teenagers through the chest - and at that range he could not miss - could not do it. And when they ignored his calls to surrender he could not shoot them, or order his men to shoot them, as they ran away.

 

Would you?

 

I suspect friend Saturninus would not have lost sleep over the decision - and that's part of where modern society is different, and better for it.

[caldrail]

You miss the point. Those teenagers were in a kill zone. They had no chance. The relevant part is the officer who *should* (for a given value of should) have opened the proceedings by shooting one of those teenagers through the chest - and at that range he could not miss - could not do it. And when they ignored his calls to surrender he could not shoot them, or order his men to shoot them, as they ran away.

His personality, experience, and mindset are not the same as everyone elses. I remember hearing about operations in Angola. A group of mercenaries, mostly inexperienced, were posted in one place and one let off a rocket grenade mistakenly in his enthusiasm. Their leader, a guy named 'Callan' (not his real name) confronted these men and demanded to know what idiot had fired. The gentlemen decided to own up, and Callan shot him dead with a pistol there and then, telling everyone else not to disobey.

 

Would you?

Funny enough, I've been asked that question before. Not having been part of a military regime, it's impossible tio answer. I would like to think I would behave with as much decency as I could, but warfare does sometimes force decisions on people they would rather not have to make.

 

I suspect friend Saturninus would not have lost sleep over the decision - and that's part of where modern society is different, and better for it.

Oh, you are so wrong. You really are. There is a strong element of honour and professional behaviour in some of the better trained armed services, but you will find that as has always happened, warfare brings out the best and worst of people, and that scurrilous behaviour is as common as it always was.

 

However, Saturninus was merely a symptom of a general Roman condition of the time. Ammanius Marcellinus and Vegetius, both contemporaries of Adrianople, made it clear that the average Roman soldier of his day was less than well trained, and in a general state of unpreparedness for battle. Zosimus writing some time later makes a very strong reference to it too. The Roman army at Adrianople was simply not able to conduct a large scale battle with any efficiency, and indeed, one of their gemnerals, Sebestianus, had tried to persuade Valens not to pursue that course of action for that very reason. Sebestianus had, in the week leading to the event, gathered a corps of men he considered capable and force marched them ahead of the column (where they defeated the Goths at the River Maritza). That amounted to something like 5-10% of the army available to Valens, and I note that the battle actually got underway because Iberian (auxillary?) troops acted without orders.

 

As terrible as war is, its moral integrity is a relative value, not an absolute one, and much depends on the viewpoint of the indiivdual. I agree - Saturninus wouldn't have lost sleep over his decision to run away - nor did Richomeres, who returning friom the campsite and discovering the battle underway, turned around and went home to Constantinople. Richomeres did well politically, Saturninus did not. Did he regret his decision for that reason in later life? We'll never know.

Edited December 31, 2008 by caldrail