Psychology of Legionnaries

[Maty]

[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.

 

Which is why 'Callan' was in Angola rather than the British army. Professional soldiers join up for a steady job with a pension and a bit of adventure. People who join up to kill are not generally popular.

 

'Funny enough, I've been asked that question before. Not having been part of a military regime, it's impossible to 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.' - which is where some of the PTSD comes in I'd guess.

 

Anyway, fascinating as this discussion has been, I feel we may stretch our fellow forum member's patience if we drag it out too long. However, if you would like to continue, Caldrail, I'll look forward to getting a message from you.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Much of this thread is based on the premise that PTSD is caused by the discomfort that arises from killing other people. While I'm sure it's not fun to kill other people (well, most of them anyway), this doesn't seem like it would cause PTSD. Rather, the general cause of PTSD seems to be the duration and intensity of random threats. Thus, when mortar shells and automatic weapon spray can seemingly come out of the blue and kill your buddies and nearly kill you, you lose the ability to see what is and is not safe behavior. Drop a rat in a similar situation, with (say) random electric shocks, and you'll get a rat with the same symptoms of PTSD observed in "shell shocked" soldiers.

 

Viewed from this perspective, it's possible to ask whether similar sorts of situations were faced by ancient warriors. As far as I can tell, there weren't many of them, but under the right conditions, maybe archers and artillery could do the trick.

[caldrail]

Rather, the general cause of PTSD seems to be the duration and intensity of random threats.

 

Threat doesn't seem to be the major cause, after all, thats why our biochemistry has adrenalin. Duration and insensity certainly, but more to do with the rnviroment. Constant explosions and shell whistles disturb the mind more in some people than others. Disturbing enviroments are used in interrogations for that reason, such as loud white noise. As you say, there was little source of this of thing in Roman times, so its constant disorientation rather than constant danger.

 

I suspect though that many Romans who did suffer regret (rather then stress related disorders) kept quiet, rather like soldiers do today. Again, since combat was not unusual, death never far away, and a culture of violence ever present, fewer Romans suffered regret than might be found today.

 

For those looking into the legionary mindset, it might be worth studying the French Foreign Legion - there are similarities but beware of modern connatations.

Edited December 31, 2008 by caldrail

[Caius Maxentius]

When I started this thread, it was because I was struck by something I read in Peter Heather's Fall of the Roman Empire, about soldiers being brutalized, thereby becoming brutal.

 

Maybe the issue isn't so much regret or PTSD as the psychological effect of constant rough and harsh treatment.

 

I was struck by it because my adolescent perception of Roman soldiers was that of a trained, disciplined force, nobly, honorably and tenaciously doing their thing. Gradually, I've come to think that they must have been (especially as the principate rolled on) men of the lower classes, illiterate, shaped by a life of violence and hardship.

 

That's why I wondered if civilian interaction became difficult; their lives would have been quite different from that of a farmer or potter. Even if death touched people's lives more then, I still imagine the soldiers living in a very different psychological world than civilians. I wonder if civilians cowered when a conterburnium of legionnaries (on or off duty) came along.

[caldrail]

Every fort had a vicus, a civilian settlement next door that serviced their needs. Evidently ciilians had a worthwhile relationship with the military supplying goods and services, and like any modern garrison town, a fair degree of trouble.

 

Evidence from Vindolanda suggests that the pace of life for mid-empire legions in peacetime was somewhat lazy. Although the harsh discipline existed, much depended on the commanders charactr and the centurions who administered punishment and kept order. Never forget the legions were corrupt. Bribes were commonplace, and this must have affected how they did business outside the fort.

 

Sources also suggest that legionaries were not above 'requisitioning' goods when they felt like it. A soldier usually needed only to brandish a sword to persuade the outraged citizen that compliance was a good idea. Typically, the soldiers stuck together like glue when accused of crime and the officers were none too keen to have their men punished at the whim of civilians, and its also suggested that civilians who did complain often got a right beating for their trouble.

 

We have therefore have men in a world apart with close knit groups trained for violence and physical labour, with a potential threat of severe punishments for infractions. Without doubt this gave them a different mindset from their civilian neighbours, but remember also that thesemen were chosen for service by virtue of their fathers profession, and those from physical and 'manly' occupations were preferred. The men would very likely be from a different part of the world, foreigners in Roman service, with a different cultural background and more than once the Romans recruited amongst warrior tribes for the same physical and psychological military values.

 

I think civilians would cower if they had reason to fear soldiers, most however would simply give them a wide berth.

[Viggen]

These days one hears allot of posttraumatic stress and depression symptoms in soldiers returning from war. Now i would imagine that 2000 years ago the traumatic experience of one on one battle must have been much greater then it is nowadays. Are there any works on stress and depressions in the ancient warfare world? Or are we now all just whimps and back then people could coupe just much better? Were long serving soldiers considered strange or crazy people with strange behaviour?

 

cheers

viggen

[Klingan]

These days one hears allot of posttraumatic stress and depression symptoms in soldiers returning from war. Now i would imagine that 2000 years ago the traumatic experience of one on one battle must have been much greater then it is nowadays. Are there any works on stress and depressions in the ancient warfare world? Or are we now all just whimps and back then people could coupe just much better? Were long serving soldiers considered strange or crazy people with strange behaviour?

 

cheers

viggen

 

I believe this topic was discussed some time ago here, but it may very well be continued

Edited May 4, 2009 by Klingan

[Viggen]

thanks Klingan, i merged them now...

[marcus silanus]

Much has been said here about the possible instance of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. However, there is a neat twist in Caesar's Gallic Wars that perhaps points to pre-traumatic stress in legionnaries.

 

After the defeat of the Helvetii, Caesar had decided to take on the German tribes under King Ariovistus. Such was his reputation for the torture of child hostages and other practices cruel by even ancient standards, discipline in the Roman ranks started to break down. The less experienced were brought to fearful tears and in general, the legionnaries spent all night bemoaning their fate and writing wills. Such was the panic that it spread to the more experienced.

 

The psychology of a legionnary was plainly vulnerable to fear, although the threshold was very high in today's terms. The therapy applied by Caesar was partly to convince the soldiers that their fears were exaggerated and largely to shame them that if they would not follow him at least the tenth legion would, in which his trust was unquestionable.

 

Needless to say, after the legionnaries had spent time on Caesar's 'couch' and received his counseling, their spirits returned.

[caldrail]

The Roman invincibility and unbreakable discipline is a myth. As for counselling, that's a modern idea, no Roman officer would mollycoddle his men in that manner and I would have thought a soldier, being basically a scumbag, would be astonished at that level of attention. What the Roman officers did was apply Leadership 101. Centurions were the driving force behind that since that was their prime responsibility. Remember that Roman methods were harsh and uncompromising. They considered that necessary, to ensure men were fit and ready to fight. That does not ensure obedience however, so that's why we see such penalties as being excluded from a camp for sleeping on guard duty (which was common practice amongst the men anyway despite the threat of discovery)

 

Any group of men can suffer from poor morale according to circumstance and quality of leadership. The Romans were no different. The mood of a group is infectious and that's why military commanders jump on these trends as soon as they see them.

[sylla]

...After the defeat of the Helvetii, Caesar had decided to take on the German tribes under King Ariovistus. Such was his reputation for the torture of child hostages and other practices cruel by even ancient standards, discipline in the Roman ranks started to break down. The less experienced were brought to fearful tears and in general, the legionnaries spent all night bemoaning their fate and writing wills. Such was the panic that it spread to the more experienced....

If we are talking about Caesar's account from his Comentarii (Book II, ch. 32), that psychological description was not on the legionaries but on the Gauls (more especifically, the Aedui).

[marcus silanus]

...After the defeat of the Helvetii, Caesar had decided to take on the German tribes under King Ariovistus. Such was his reputation for the torture of child hostages and other practices cruel by even ancient standards, discipline in the Roman ranks started to break down. The less experienced were brought to fearful tears and in general, the legionnaries spent all night bemoaning their fate and writing wills. Such was the panic that it spread to the more experienced....

If we are talking about Caesar's account from his Comentarii (Book II, ch. 32), that psychological description was not on the legionaries but on the Gauls (more especifically, the Aedui).

 

I was referring to the passages relating to the legionnaries who '...at times, could not restrain their tears' ( Book I 39,40,41). This led Caesar to call together all the Centurions and convince them that their fears were lacking foundation. Of course the Gauls who had been subjected to particular cruelty were particularly fearful, but my reference was to the legionnaries.

 

Otherwise, I did not use the term 'counsel' in the modern sense. Caesar's way of dealing with the disruption in discipline was by and large to tell the legionnaries to pull themselves together and stop being weak. He held up the reputation of LEGIO X to add shame to the admonishment. Punishments for cowardice were especially harsh, but perhaps and I am guessing, Caesar would have considered it more expedient to erase any possibility of cowardice spilling on to the battlefield by his speech to the Centurions. At it's conclusion, '...there arose an intense enthusiasm and eagerness to start the campaign.'

[caldrail]

It sounds very organised doesn't it? Caesar also mentions his efforts to keep men in the line. Officers routinely positioned themselves behind fighting units to exhort them to greater effort, or more likely, to stop them running away. Twice he describes confronting a frightened standard bearer. One man threatened Caesar with the sharp end of his standard to get past, the other simply thrust the pole into Caesars hands and ran.

 

In fact, Caesar was sometimes found fighting in the front rank to inspire his men. Clearly he was unable to direct the battle whilst doing so.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

The Roman invincibility and unbreakable discipline is a myth.

Unfortunately modern general history and the Western military in general,especially Military theorists and high ranking officers, all unfortunately accept Roman invincibility and unbreakable discipline as fact and even help spread those 2 misconceptions of the Roman Legions.

 

Caldrail, any good online sources for this?Iam currently in debates and arguments with amatuer historians and military theorists and even professional soldiers about this throughout the web.In fact one of my current goals along with dispelling the myths of the 3 Indochina Wars is dispelling many myths of the Roman Legion and Roman Warfare and helping educate others about the reality of how the Roman military operated.

Edited May 5, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Virgil61]

Much of this thread is based on the premise that PTSD is caused by the discomfort that arises from killing other people. While I'm sure it's not fun to kill other people (well, most of them anyway), this doesn't seem like it would cause PTSD. Rather, the general cause of PTSD seems to be the duration and intensity of random threats. Thus, when mortar shells and automatic weapon spray can seemingly come out of the blue and kill your buddies and nearly kill you, you lose the ability to see what is and is not safe behavior. Drop a rat in a similar situation, with (say) random electric shocks, and you'll get a rat with the same symptoms of PTSD observed in "shell shocked" soldiers.

 

Viewed from this perspective, it's possible to ask whether similar sorts of situations were faced by ancient warriors. As far as I can tell, there weren't many of them, but under the right conditions, maybe archers and artillery could do the trick.

 

Hopefully the following gives a little insight.

 

I think you're very close to the mark on this old post. It's the 24/7 nature of the stress that becomes the burden. A simple drive to get mail for your unit might end up ambushed or encountering an IED. Depending on the location a drive through a populated downtown area was one of the most stress-filled occurrences I encountered. More stressful than combat because combat is a known quantity.

 

As a leader you try to control fear by training; go over what happens in an ambush, what happens during an assault, daily weapons maintenance & continuous wpns ranges to keep skills,know how to call in a medivac, know how to call in supporting fire, work on a plan for wounded, and so on. Then you rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.

 

It goes far to build confidence at stem the flight response. I'd venture a guess that an isolated Roman cohort who were under a sustained siege over a period of days or weeks might come closest to having what we'd know today as PTSD.

 

Some soldiers will shoot poorly out of fear or nerves in the first encounters. You've got to keep an eye on your guys to get a feel for who might need extra training or mentoring. Usually works itself out but if not you have to pull that soldier out and work on him.

 

Two more observations. First those soldiers who are beginning to 'crack' under the pressure are best served sent to 'the rear' for a 72 hour break then returned to combat. Based on WWI and II studies those who were sent home for permanently did worse than those returned to combat (who survived). Secondly it's the nature of small groups of younger males to bond and develop a mutual support system. I know this by experience but it isn't brain surgery. PTSD is rarer for those who stay in service among their comrades than it is for those who are separated when returned stateside.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Virgil61