03-03-2001, 11:52 AM
Sander-<br>
I'd say they were more likely to use their weapons, for a couple of reasons:<br>
1. The draconian punishments for cowardice and/or disobedience; because they are in close formation they are under the eyes of their superiors/fellow soldiers.<br>
2. The close formation itself. Stuck out in a line on a field with the enemy coming at you, I think everyone could overcome any moral reservations on taking human lives.<br>
3. I also think that the Roman soldier was not as "civilized" as modern recruits are. Before the triumph of Christianity, there wasn't "Thou shalt not kill." After Constantine, weren't most recruits either hereditary recruits or else from the edges of the map?<br>
4. Also, the main cause of casualties was, I believe, routing. I would <i> hope</i> they knew that if you ran, you died. Not the sort of death the Patria thinks "sweet and fitting" to die...<br>
<p></p><i></i>
I'd say they were more likely to use their weapons, for a couple of reasons:<br>
1. The draconian punishments for cowardice and/or disobedience; because they are in close formation they are under the eyes of their superiors/fellow soldiers.<br>
2. The close formation itself. Stuck out in a line on a field with the enemy coming at you, I think everyone could overcome any moral reservations on taking human lives.<br>
3. I also think that the Roman soldier was not as "civilized" as modern recruits are. Before the triumph of Christianity, there wasn't "Thou shalt not kill." After Constantine, weren't most recruits either hereditary recruits or else from the edges of the map?<br>
4. Also, the main cause of casualties was, I believe, routing. I would <i> hope</i> they knew that if you ran, you died. Not the sort of death the Patria thinks "sweet and fitting" to die...<br>
<p></p><i></i>
