Terrifying Enemies

[marcus silanus]

Roman discipline was tried over centuries against some blood curdling opponents, but who do you think would make the blood drain from your head even before they removed it?!!

 

Take your pick from hundreds of years worth of monstrous foes. For me it has to be the Teutones and Cimbri. One particularly nasty practice was to ritually disembowl prisoners over a large pot to give thanks to their gods and also, successfully I suspect, to utterly demoralise the enemy.

 

However, we all know that however heinous those practices were, the legions ultimately triumphed, so what aspects of the Roman character enabled them to often come back from the brink of defeat and quell such savage foes?

[Formosus Viriustus]

However, we all know that however heinous those practices were, the legions ultimately triumphed, so what aspects of the Roman character enabled them to often come back from the brink of defeat and quell such savage foes?

 

How about those Carthagenian mercenaries who revolted after the defeat at Zama over pay arrears ? As I recall it they lured some prominent Carthagenians to their camp to negotiate over conditions, then grabbed them, cut of their ears, noses and lips, broke their arms and legs and threw them in a ditch to die in full view of their fellow citizens. Needless to say what the Carthagenians had in store for them when they finally got the better of them. (Don't remember the author).

 

The Romans were no softies either. I guess it was pretty much the way things were at the time. Public executions, crucifixions and so on were very common events even in peaceful times. And in war it was immeasurably worse. WW II maybe made more victims than all the wars fought by the Romans put together. But very few of those were killed in hand to hand fighting. In the old days it had to be done almost exclusively by hand. I guess to survive at all in those days you had to be pretty immume to blood and gore and suffering.

 

Formosus

[caldrail]

If you look at the various cultures of the ancient world you soon see a very violent and harsh world. Life was short and cheap. Much is made of Roman brutality but they existed in a brutal world.

[marcus silanus]

However, we all know that however heinous those practices were, the legions ultimately triumphed, so what aspects of the Roman character enabled them to often come back from the brink of defeat and quell such savage foes?

 

How about those Carthagenian mercenaries who revolted after the defeat at Zama over pay arrears ? As I recall it they lured some prominent Carthagenians to their camp to negotiate over conditions, then grabbed them, cut of their ears, noses and lips, broke their arms and legs and threw them in a ditch to die in full view of their fellow citizens. Needless to say what the Carthagenians had in store for them when they finally got the better of them. (Don't remember the author).

 

The Romans were no softies either. I guess it was pretty much the way things were at the time. Public executions, crucifixions and so on were very common events even in peaceful times. And in war it was immeasurably worse. WW II maybe made more victims than all the wars fought by the Romans put together. But very few of those were killed in hand to hand fighting. In the old days it had to be done almost exclusively by hand. I guess to survive at all in those days you had to be pretty immume to blood and gore and suffering.

 

Formosus

 

The Mercenary Revolt was a perfect example of the lengths to which men will go when they have nothing to lose. The leaders, Spendius and Matho, both faced death by torture if they returned to their native lands. This was, however, at the end of the First Punic War and not after Zama.

Edited May 4, 2009 by marcus silanus

[Kosmo]

However, we all know that however heinous those practices were, the legions ultimately triumphed, so what aspects of the Roman character enabled them to often come back from the brink of defeat and quell such savage foes?

 

Roman entertainment was extremely brutal. Gruesome public executions, gladiator fights and hunts in the arena, dangerous chariot races, boxing with metal gloves, realist deaths during theatrical performances were all making people less sensitive to the pain of others.

[caldrail]

There was a Roman who mentioned that (Cicero?). He said that it demonstrated that even if a slave could die nobly, what then could a Roman do? Besides, he says, it prepares them for battle.

 

Actually, it doesn't achieve that. Certainly people became more brutalised but not everyone was. Seneca shook his head at the pointless nastiness of it all, and ultimately, the increasing brutality of the games did not keep the crowds coming in. In any human society, you find a range of sensibilities and there would always be those who were more humanitarian.

 

Worse still, the vast majority of those audiences would run for cover if a battle started (unless they had experience of fighting or were trained to do so as in the legions). In entertainment, you watch someone else get hurt, not risk your own pain.

[The Augusta]

If you look at the various cultures of the ancient world you soon see a very violent and harsh world. Life was short and cheap. Much is made of Roman brutality but they existed in a brutal world.

 

How very true! Nor was the classical world alone in its brutality. People in England as late as the 18th century flocked to see men hanged drawn and quartered.

 

And as you rightly observed further down in the thread, Calders, watching brutality meted out to others in the name of entertainment or - Gods forbid - 'justice' - is in no way indicative of a person's courage in battle.

[sylla]

This thread deals with (and probably sometimes mixes up) two brutalities of quite different kind, even if both are not mutually exclusive and both have been fundamentally universal up to the present day.

 

The first one is included within the inherent and legally entitled use of force by any state to preserve law and order; naturally, the definitions of "force" and "law and order" vary. Any conquest has required the use of terror to try to dissuade any opposition.

 

The other one is the public use of violence for entertainment; ie, socially sanctioned sadism.

[caldrail]

or more accurately, the active brutality of one man upon another as opposed to the passive brutality of watching someone else suffer.