Psychology of Legionnaries

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

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.

Thing is the Roman Legions did not abide by modern leadership concepts such as constantly trying to bond with troops.Different eras with different mindsets.Sure there may be strong comradeship among some units.As for PTSD,its really the individual's personality that determines their likehood of getting it.Individuals like Roger Vandenbergh(GCMA Commando in Indochina War) are were never victims of PTSD despite going through the harshest lifestyles and hellish experiences in the wars they fought in.

 

Concepts such as pulling out individuals doing poorly and giving them extra training are relatively modern and not generally practiced by the Roman military as a whole.

 

Also beware of the information of such studies such as the one about WW1 and WW2 you posted.Often they are inaccurate and many factors tend to not to be considered and overlooked when such studies occur.Studies are only accurate to a certain extent. One has to keep of factors not analyzed in such studies.

Edited May 11, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Virgil61]

Thing is the Roman Legions did not abide by modern leadership concepts such as constantly trying to bond with troops.Different eras with different mindsets.Sure there may be strong comradeship among some units.As for PTSD,its really the individual's personality that determines their likehood of getting it.Individuals like Roger Vandenbergh(GCMA Commando in Indochina War) are were never victims of PTSD despite going through the harshest lifestyles and hellish experiences in the wars they fought in.

 

Concepts such as pulling out individuals doing poorly and giving them extra training are relatively modern and not generally practiced by the Roman military as a whole.

 

Also beware of the information of such studies such as the one about WW1 and WW2 you posted.Often they are inaccurate and many factors tend to not to be considered and overlooked when such studies occur.Studies are only accurate to a certain extent. One has to keep of factors not analyzed in such studies.

 

1. These were my experiences in war not that of Roman legions that I put out in hopes they might offer insight. I said so at the beginning.

 

2. What you call 'modern leadership concepts' are not 'modern', they're an observation of human psychology. The 'concepts' are based on observation of human organizations across a wide variety of cultures, eras and workplaces. The subsequent formalization and classification of those observations are what is 'modern'. (In economics supply & demand and government intervention are part of modern economic vocabulary. That doesn't preclude economic historians from successfully using supply & demand or gov't intervention to analyze historical eras that precede their invention.)

 

3. Bonding with troops is one method of leadership. Julius Caesar wrote a famous set of war dispatches called 'Commentaries' emphasizing to some extent that leader-soldier bonding existed among Romans.

 

From Caesar's own pen (caes.gal.7.19);

 

"with how great loss and the death of how many gallant men the victory would necessarily be purchased: and when he saw them so determined to decline no danger for his renown, that he ought to be considered guilty of the utmost injustice if he did not hold their life dearer than his personal safety." Having thus consoled his soldiers, he leads them back on the same day to the camp, and determined to prepare the other things which were necessary for the siege of the town.

 

Contrast that with Tacitus' account of Corbulo to see the wide range of leadership styles Romans used.

 

Tacitus.Annales Bk 11.19

19. In fact, the terror Corbulo inspired impacted di?erently on our soldiers and the enemy: it meant increased courage for us, but a crushing of the barbarians

Edited May 12, 2011 by Virgil61

[caldrail]

What you call 'modern leadership concepts' are not 'modern', they're an observation of human psychology. The 'concepts' are based on observation of human organizations across a wide variety of cultures, eras and workplaces. The subsequent formalization and classification of those observations are what is 'modern'. (In economics supply & demand and government intervention are part of modern economic vocabulary. That doesn't preclude economic historians from successfully using supply & demand or gov't intervention to analyze historical eras that precede their invention.)

There was no sophistication about Roman leadership. The majority were fairly lacklustre and although some did shine, we should remember the senior commanders were not career officers - an important observation which indicates a lack of formal leadership training. They relied on the individuals previous political experience and family upbringing, a system that produced variable results.

 

5. Anyone who studies WWI or WWII in depth is aware of flawed studies [like SLA Marshal's]. My information comes straight from practicing Army psychologists at SF Command on Ft Bragg as well as a good friend who is a Navy shrink treating present day veterans suffering from PTSD at the VA. Also interesting and for another forum. I'll pass them your insights if you'd like.

Whilst there will be some common factors we should also bear in mind that the Roman era was on of death from disease, accident, or violence before the age of twenty for three out of five Romans. Life was often short and brutal, thus we see the popularity of arena combat, boxing, panration, and chariot racing as not only a thrill in itself, but also a means for the audience to be passive and not risk themselves.

 

Also, I would point out that recent pschylogical science is geared toward the enviroment in which these troops operate. In Roman times you expect a claustrophic ennviroment, one of safety in numbers, of large scale effects from small scale emotional state changes. The noise of battle, which wasn't inconsiderable in Roman times despite orders to fight silently, was of a more feral and challenge orientated nature, quite apart of the incidental noise of the gunpowder and explosives era.. Frightening at times certainly, but less otherworldly to experience.

 

Points to be stressed are

 

1 - the bonds between soldiers in the legion. They call each other 'Brother', and the low level organisation is designed to foster the extended family that we find common in Roman culture.

 

2 - The lack of individual initiative and creative thought in combat, despite the encouragement of officers to ward their men to show some. Men who inadvertantly rush forward from the ranks are laughed at by their comrades.

 

3 - Channelled anger, which seems to emerge again and again in descriptions before the late empire. The men are hard-bitten, perhaps even frustrated by their lot if not by the enemy, and readily focus that rage - which I personally believe to be as a result of centurionate leadership (and cajolement) as opposed to senior policy.

 

4 - The balance of fear, between the possibility of flogging or decimation, as opposed to the facing off of damgerous enemies on the field.

 

5 - The constant presence of corruption, larceny, and various dodges within the ranks. These are men who are trained to peform a role rather than be disciplined overall. Away from the fight, their discipline is remarkably fragile.

 

6 - The occaisional emergence of charismatic troublemakers within the ranks and by modern standards the odd inability to harness the p;ositive aspects of that sort of character.

 

7 - The role of Roman culture as a format for troops behaviour. Men were expected to be within certain personality limits, supposed to exhibit what they regarded as a healthy macho, aggressive character. Although a sense of personal honour is suggested by the Romans, it remained an ideal, one a soldier should strive for, and by that token usually lacking.

 

8 - The lack of information given to the soldiers, who appear to have been left in the dark as often as not. Troops were not usually told where they were marching for they would react badly. It was considered enough that they knew who they were fighting. In terms of morale, there is very little in the way of propaganda fed to the men, and we see the speech to rouse mens mood as very important in the methodology of Roman leadership.

[Melvadius]

There was no sophistication about Roman leadership. The majority were fairly lacklustre and although some did shine, we should remember the senior commanders were not career officers - an important observation which indicates a lack of formal leadership training. They relied on the individuals previous political experience and family upbringing, a system that produced variable results.

 

 

While broadly correct do not forget that it was common for aspiring leaders settingout on the military path to read 'military' text books, hich although they have not generally survived in any great detail apart from notably Frontinus 'Strategems' we know existed. They also would probably have had some training from their elders who had done their own period of service whether formally or not either directly or informally including when they went to the baths or just exercised.

 

Whilst there will be some common factors we should also bear in mind that the Roman era was on of death from disease, accident, or violence before the age of twenty for three out of five Romans. Life was often short and brutal, thus we see the popularity of arena combat, boxing, panration, and chariot racing as not only a thrill in itself, but also a means for the audience to be passive and not risk themselves.

 

Have you got a source for the death statistics? Otherwise you have made some good general points on how life in the military in the period MAY have been perceived but I would pick up on one of them in particular

 

8 - The lack of information given to the soldiers, who appear to have been left in the dark as often as not. Troops were not usually told where they were marching for they would react badly. It was considered enough that they knew who they were fighting. In terms of morale, there is very little in the way of propaganda fed to the men, and we see the speech to rouse mens mood as very important in the methodology of Roman leadership.

 

This comment probably rings bells for many who served in the military until very recently and possibly even today - I know that in the Great War my grandfather was moved around several times and often didn't know specifically where he was going until after they arrived. Simlarly my father was put on a troop ship in southern England during WW2 which was overloaded and had to decant 1000 men at the first stop in South Africa after which he and the rest of the men affected didn't know where they would end up - it all depended on the first ship which arrived with extra space.

 

These sort of SNAFU's will have occured in most military organisations in antiquity not necessarily more so in the Roman period since transport may have been lost or misplaced even if the men in charge knew where they were going in more than the broad terms of 'thataway'.

 

On a more general point we are drifting away from the original contention which has already been decided that relatively few Roman soldiers would have suffered from the same type of PTSD as experienced in more recent times when soldiers have suffered constant bombardment from high explosive devices or a constant threat of booby traps.

 

Put simply the range of pressures experienced in both periods have relatively few specific similarities although the general military experience depending on which specific situatuion you are discussing does provide some congruent details.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

There was no sophistication about Roman leadership. The majority were fairly lacklustre and although some did shine, we should remember the senior commanders were not career officers - an important observation which indicates a lack of formal leadership training. They relied on the individuals previous political experience and family upbringing, a system that produced variable results.[/Quote]

 

To be fair, reality is that no military force no matter how well trained or advanced and sophisticated necessarily translates into having superb leadership.It really depends on the individual within the leadership positions that influence how well subordinates in lower rakns of leadership perform.Two examples that come into my mind(from my primary specilization in history, the Indochina War):

 

1)Marcel Bigeard

Read These Links:

http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/html/annuaire/bigeard.htm

http://francaisdefrance.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/lhommage-en-langue-anglaise-a-marcel-bigeard/

 

In fact the man in the photo in my signature is Marcel Bigead, and the line in the sig is his famous motto.

 

2)Jean De Lattre De Tassigny

Read this link:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,821696,00.html

http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/12418-marshall-jean-de-lattre-de-tassigny/

 

 

 

As a student of Indochina, I can't tell you of how so much corruption within the French army played a major role in the ineffecient performaance of the French army in battles.When leaders such as De Lattre and Marcel Bigeard take command, the French army fought with such superb performance and won victories(in fact during De Lattre's time as commander the French were winning and had he lived, the French would HAVE WON THE WAR!).To put it simply, leadership is really on outstanding individuals and not a reflection of the military's sophistiaction or the society.

 

It doesn't surprise me if most Roman generals were just average or even mediocre as commanders according to Roman standards.Brilliant men like Julius Caesar,Alexander of Macedonia,and De Lattre are like lottery tickets-they come every once in a century and they are not the norm.

8 - The lack of information given to the soldiers, who appear to have been left in the dark as often as not. Troops were not usually told where they were marching for they would react badly. It was considered enough that they knew who they were fighting. In terms of morale, there is very little in the way of propaganda fed to the men, and we see the speech to rouse mens mood as very important in the methodology of Roman leadership.

 

To be honest, the lack of information given to soldiers in war is something as old as mankind and is a something that happens in all eras of warfare and miltiary forces and culture.No good commander is going to straight up tell bad information that surely demoralize their troops.For example, during the battle of Dien Bien Phu, the artillery commander, Colonel Piroth committed suicide.By the time this happened, the battle was already going badly so the officers in charge, Lt. Colonel Langlais and Colonel De Castries both agreed that telling the information to the rest of the French forces in the battle would only make things much worse than it already is and demoralize the men more so they ultimately decided to carry out a plow where they kept sending scouts to look for Piroth's body (well in fact they already buried it somewhere int he battlefield).The scouts came empty in their search and instead of being reported dead, Piroth was reported as missing to the troops of the garrision.The ploy basically worked.

 

Iam pretty sure Roman leaders(and leaders of military forces in general) have done similar things.

Edited May 12, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Virgil61]

There was no sophistication about Roman leadership. The majority were fairly lacklustre and although some did shine, we should remember the senior commanders were not career officers - an important observation which indicates a lack of formal leadership training. They relied on the individuals previous political experience and family upbringing, a system that produced variable results.

 

 

While broadly correct do not forget that it was common for aspiring leaders settingout on the military path to read 'military' text books, hich although they have not generally survived in any great detail apart from notably Frontinus 'Strategems' we know existed. They also would probably have had some training from their elders who had done their own period of service whether formally or not either directly or informally including when they went to the baths or just exercised.

 

Let me clarify if it wasn't clear enough that I merely stated that you can use the vocabulary of leadership concepts (which I believe to be timeless and not linked to any era) to describe Roman styles and was not saying that leadership was taught in any form.

 

On the other hand it is certainly possible that up and comers read contemporary military literature that hasn't survived and/or that they observed which centurion/legate/whomever was more competent in his approach to leading his soldiers and learn from it (or learn to avoid it).

 

I think the idea of mentoring say a young equestrian which you allude to is a perfectly valid supposition. I'd be surprised if it was not common, it strikes me as a perfectly "Roman" approach.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Virgil61

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

There was no sophistication about Roman leadership. The majority were fairly lacklustre and although some did shine, we should remember the senior commanders were not career officers - an important observation which indicates a lack of formal leadership training. They relied on the individuals previous political experience and family upbringing, a system that produced variable results.

 

 

While broadly correct do not forget that it was common for aspiring leaders settingout on the military path to read 'military' text books, hich although they have not generally survived in any great detail apart from notably Frontinus 'Strategems' we know existed. They also would probably have had some training from their elders who had done their own period of service whether formally or not either directly or informally including when they went to the baths or just exercised.

 

Let me clarify if it wasn't clear enough that I merely stated that you can use the vocabulary of leadership concepts (which I believe to be timeless and not linked to any era) to describe Roman styles and was not saying that leadership was taught in any form.

 

On the other hand it is certainly possible that up and comers read contemporary military literature that hasn't survived and/or that they observed which centurion/legate/whomever was more competent in his approach to leading his soldiers and learn from it (or learn to avoid it).

 

I think the idea of mentoring say a young equestrian which you allude to is a perfectly valid supposition. I'd be surprised if it was not common, it strikes me as a perfectly "Roman" approach.

 

 

This is very dangerous.Already many histories including my specialization the French Indochina War, have been distorted as the result of using such "general vocabulary" and concepts to describe things that look similar.Reality is what often seems to resemble modern concepts or defining an ancient word by the modern meaning is often very inaccurate and brings many misconception. In fact History as a whole is being distorted because of using a general vocubulary,comparing similarities between eras without, and using modern terminology to describe concepts in history such as manuever keeping in mind the differences.Read this article on Medieval Warfare(which describes very much the dangers of using modern terms and basically comparing warfare in the past including more recent ones such as the French-Indochina War(especially terms and military concepts) with modern ones without keeping in mind the differences.

 

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/mcglynn.htm

 

Of all histories I read to date along with the French Indochina War and Medieval Warfare,Roman history(especially Roman warfare) has sufferred the worst distorations and damage from trying to use modern terminology on ancient concepts as though they were the same and comparing modern and past warfare and making analogies between them without keeping the differences of concepts in mind.I feel that as a rule of thumb its best to read specifically into the details of histories or military concepts of the past before making an analogy with modern concepts.Other wise we will be spreading myths and distortions in history(such as the soldiers and general historians who studied the Middle Ages as the link I posted states) and will instead help spread inaccurate and flawed history when discussing this with people unfamiliar with the historical era.

Edited May 13, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Now back to the topic.The Psychology of the Legionnaires were not uniformly iron and tough as steel as they are romanticised to be.Reality is it really depends on the individual Legionnaire himself and what kind of officer is in charge.Corrupt officers will always have mediocre units while superb officers tend to have strong units.And of course there will always be individuals even in the worst ranking unit in a military unit that would excel at soldiering and have an outstanding performance in the battlefield despite having a corrupt weak officer in charge and despite being in such a weak unit where unit integrity and the like will be poor.Marcel Bigeard is such an outstanding example;despite being the French army having so much corrupt and incompetent commanders in the Indochina War, Bigeard's unit was always outstanding and was even more so in the Algerian War of Independence(where HE HAD TO BUILD A UNIT OF UNTRAINED UNFIT CONSCRIPT that contained many ALGERIANS(his enemy in that war) from scratch.Yet it excelled and unit integrity proved insanely strong(the men he commanded always loved him) despite many of his subordinates coming from the populace that mainly supported the enemy simply because he was such a superb leader.

 

The Romans were no different, so its really the inidividual Legionnaire himself that determines his psychology.Officers can heavily influence, but in the end its the individual Roman himself that determines his mindset.

Edited May 13, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Virgil61]

There was no sophistication about Roman leadership. The majority were fairly lacklustre and although some did shine, we should remember the senior commanders were not career officers - an important observation which indicates a lack of formal leadership training. They relied on the individuals previous political experience and family upbringing, a system that produced variable results.

 

 

While broadly correct do not forget that it was common for aspiring leaders settingout on the military path to read 'military' text books, hich although they have not generally survived in any great detail apart from notably Frontinus 'Strategems' we know existed. They also would probably have had some training from their elders who had done their own period of service whether formally or not either directly or informally including when they went to the baths or just exercised.

 

Let me clarify if it wasn't clear enough that I merely stated that you can use the vocabulary of leadership concepts (which I believe to be timeless and not linked to any era) to describe Roman styles and was not saying that leadership was taught in any form.

 

On the other hand it is certainly possible that up and comers read contemporary military literature that hasn't survived and/or that they observed which centurion/legate/whomever was more competent in his approach to leading his soldiers and learn from it (or learn to avoid it).

 

I think the idea of mentoring say a young equestrian which you allude to is a perfectly valid supposition. I'd be surprised if it was not common, it strikes me as a perfectly "Roman" approach.

 

 

This is very dangerous.Already many histories including my specialization the French Indochina War, have been distorted as the result of using such "general vocabulary" and concepts to describe things that look similar.Reality is what often seems to resemble modern concepts or defining an ancient word by the modern meaning is often very inaccurate and brings many misconception. In fact History as a whole is being distorted because of using a general vocubulary,comparing similarities between eras without, and using modern terminology to describe concepts in history such as manuever keeping in mind the differences.Read this article on Medieval Warfare(which describes very much the dangers of using modern terms and basically comparing warfare in the past including more recent ones such as the French-Indochina War(especially terms and military concepts) with modern ones without keeping in mind the differences.

 

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/mcglynn.htm

 

Of all histories I read to date along with the French Indochina War and Medieval Warfare,Roman history(especially Roman warfare) has sufferred the worst distorations and damage from trying to use modern terminology on ancient concepts as though they were the same and comparing modern and past warfare and making analogies between them without keeping the differences of concepts in mind.I feel that as a rule of thumb its best to read specifically into the details of histories or military concepts of the past before making an analogy with modern concepts.Other wise we will be spreading myths and distortions in history(such as the soldiers and general historians who studied the Middle Ages as the link I posted states) and will instead help spread inaccurate and flawed history when discussing this with people unfamiliar with the historical era.

 

"It's d

[caldrail]

To be honest, the lack of information given to soldiers in war is something as old as mankind and is a something that happens in all eras of warfare and miltiary forces and culture.No good commander is going to straight up tell bad information that surely demoralize their troops

True, but the Romans seemed to be a little short of the good stuff too. As far as the commanders were concered, the soldiers were there to do as ordered and didn't need to know anything. Perhaps that's overstating the point - I'm sure the more observant soldiers soon started rumours - but bear in mind there was no guarantee the Roman troops were going to obey without question. This is a fundamental difference in attitude that needs to be understood. Legionaries were not automatically obedient

 

To be fair, reality is that no military force no matter how well trained or advanced and sophisticated necessarily translates into having superb leadership.

Correct, although an enviroment of excellence improves the average. The Romans had high expectations of their amateur leaders (that's the class system for you) but no system of guaranteeing a basic level of performance. We have one classic example of a man trying not to get noticed. When Germanicus sent a letter ahead to the commander of a mutined legion in Germania, he suggested strongly that the commander had better have done something before he arrived. Implicit in this anecdote is that Germanicus is angry at the lack of initiative from commanders, probably made worse by the clumsy and ineffectual efforts Blaesus had made to control the situation in Pannonia.

 

I've already mentioned that Roman commanders were not career officers. In my view, they were more often military managers, a acting more like lords of the manor, but that would have been natural to them because that was the enviroment they had learned command from to any extent. It should be pointed out however that the Augustan system of military tribunes was, in all probabllity, set up to provide a cadre of experienced (not necessarily trained) leaders who would lead legions in later life, since for the Romans political careers invariably called for military credibility. Politicians were commanders also - there was no functional seperation in role.

 

While broadly correct do not forget that it was common for aspiring leaders settingout on the military path to read 'military' text books, hich although they have not generally survived in any great detail apart from notably Frontinus 'Strategems' we know existed. They also would probably have had some training from their elders who had done their own period of service whether formally or not either directly or informally including when they went to the baths or just exercised.

Which is basically the sort of thing I was talking about. All very ad hoc and not to any standard. In any case, simply reading a book doesn't make you proficient at a skill.

[Maty]

With the post-traumatic stress issue, it might also be worth looking at catharsis.

 

The modern soldier fights his battles and goes home where he - or she - then copes with the emotional strains that result from deliberately placing oneself in a life-threatening situation. There is no catharsis.

 

Assuming that things went well, the average legionary finished a battle or siege by purging stress through(in his eyes) well-earned massacre, rape and pillage. Since his society condoned such actions, there would be no guilt afterwards. So an interesting question is whether - deplorable as it might be - did such conduct make for a more emotionally healthy soldier?

[Anjelus]

Is it really accurate to assume PTSD is the result of prolonged stress though? As an example I would point to rape victims or people who've been in car accidents. Those are singular sources of very intense trauma that seem to overwhelm the brain.

 

I would argue that such cases had to have been very prevalent after ancient battles, but they were undiagnosed or labeled other things (e.g. cowardice). I know there was a culture glorifying war and they experienced death much more than we do today but our underlying psyche is the same and subject to the same vulnerabilities.

 

So the question for me isn't whether or not PTSD existed, I think it clearly had to have. The question of interest is really how they coped with it and how society reacted to sufferers of it.

[caldrail]

Further to Maty#s answer, and to reiterate my own, the ancient battlefield may have been a terrifying place at times, but you generally fought together, as a closely packed herd. There's a measure of reassurance in that. What Roman soldiers didn't have to cope with was the constant threat of anonymous firearm attacks, random explosions.

 

I was going to add having to cope with death, injury, and risk, often without majority assistance, but of course that's blatant nonsense having remembered Marcellimus's discussion about what you would have seen on the field of Adrianople - a very personal view, yet one borrowed from elsewhere, because Ammanius marcelinus had indeed seen perilous miltary action, he had done so under the Western Empire against the Franks, not the Goths in the east.

 

There is a curious feature of battlefield experience linked to this. Despite training, skill, discipline, and protection, there's no doubt that the typical ancient warrior would have witnessed and suffered horrendous injuries as the opposing warrior is hacked to bits (or stabbed - the preferred method of the aspiring legionary).

 

Iron Age battles were apparently even worse for the lack of protective armour. Archaeology reveals many young men with serious injuries received and survived. It seems then that a part of human psychology adapts to the necessity of violence. Whether we like inflicting harm and risking it, the need to fight is a basic instinct and one behavioural style we can choose for better or worse. Therefore we have a natural ability to cope with what would seem to be a nightmare of sharp blades and their use.

 

On the other hand, the changes in the nature of combat since have not found a suitable niche in our biologiccal support mechanisms, although the same attitudes and behaviours still form the basis of this activity. Some people are of course more prone to stress conditions than others.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

"It's d

[Pisces Axxxxx]

I remember Caldrail mentioned it somewhere about the Roman Legions not facing an environment with constant explosives and other loud weaponry like machine guns.It goes hand in hand with what my World History Teacher said in class.

 

He said that in World War 1 for the first time "Shell Shock" aka PTSD came into development as a mental condition. Among the factors causing this was soldiers staying trenches literally for whole months, if not years, in a battlefield environment with artillery blasts, machine gun fire, and explosives being sounded almost all the time. Practically constant exposure to such weaponry and hence came the word "Shell Shock".

 

He also stated that World War 1 had the wide scale slaughter that no previous war ever had. Literally you would not pass a single day without seeing at least 20 men killed and hundreds, if not thousands, of men being slaughtered everyday in sight was practically a common occurrence.

 

Despite their reputation for iron discipline and readiness to accept death, the Roman Legions (and I should also bring up the Spartans who were infamous for their fearless nature in War) never faced weaponry on the loud scale as explosives and machine gun nor did they witness mass scale slaughter occurring frequently as in modern warfare.

 

I know not even Caesar's legions under his common would have lasted 1 day in World War 1 without collapsing down from shell shock and seeing mass slaughter.