Well life of children was certainly cheap. It was a sad fact that before the 20th century, most children did not survive to the age of 1. Some figures, in some societies, place the mortality of 8/10 babies not making it the first 12 months of their life. One society didn't name children until they had passed their first birthday.
The life of a Roman citizen though?
Cicero's trial over the corruption of the Roman Governor of Sicily, who was guilty of murder, stealing state funds, and even trying to bribe the very court that was prosecuting him all seem to be serious offenses which would warrant death. Despite conviction, he was fined and released.
The Roman Citizen enjoyed several rights, even their slaves came to, no matter where he traveled within the Empire. They certainly and seemed to enjoy a great deal of protection. Still, there's no doubt that the army itself which was mostly comprised of people seeking said citizenship, was a massive meat grinder. This may have changed going into the later centuries, but the 1st century Roman Citizen was subject to many of the same rights we are today.
Don't overestimate the tenacity of our ancestors. They lived harsh lives, and men were much harder than those of today, but they still suffered the same emotion and psychological pain we do. All this information regarding combat wasn't that of just the Romans, but of all pre-modern warfare, and several pre-modern European societies were nearly as soft as we are.
I completely agree. Wasn't the bow/sling (ranged combat) the single most important military invention in our history? It basically was responsible for the creation of armies, large battles, and war as people feared death less than when we were still running around with clubs and knives.
Are you sure? Most modern homocides involving stab wounds are bloody, long, and horrifying. People often take 20+ wounds until they're mortally wounded, and continue to fight for their lives for minutes.
People, when under enough stress and enough adrenaline in their blood, can receive a gunshot wound which is far more traumatic than a slash/thrust, and not even know they were hit until they feel the blood. I'm sure there were more than a few soldiers who were able to shrug off the pain and keep fighting until the very, very end. We overestimate the number of wounded who died.
It's Visby itself that shows us that several of the men had been wounded in previous battles, survived their wounds, and fully recovered. Wounds we'd immediately think were deadly without the advent of surgery and antibiotics. Nevertheless, the dying and dead did serve as an obstacle on the Battlefield. Their equipment was probably picked up and used frequently.
I agree. This is something I wish I could see. The berserker at the Battle of Stamford bridge that held up the entire Saxon army, without armor, slaying 3 dozen Saxons with an axe before being killed by deception. The Romans have a similar account in the form of Horatius Cocles, who also made a last stand at a bridge, and was able to hold off an army long enough to save Rome.
I'd say there's quite a bit of truth to both. The 1%'ers were probably terribly effective as nobody would be eager to fight a man who had no fear, and was dispatching your comrades with ruthless efficiency. I really wish we knew what Viking berserkers took to become so entranced. They'd kill friend or foe in their blind rage, they were clearly intoxicated. A good way to multiply the number of 1%'ers in your army though.
If armor provided troops with a degree of superiority or aura of invulnerability, regardless of its true effectiveness, then I'd say it's already done it's job. That may be why there are examples of butted mail out there, or other armors which were probably ineffective. The soldiers themselves would not know until it was too late. WW1/WW2 helmets? Rarely stopped a bullet. But any little bit helps, especially when it comes to getting your soldiers to risk their lives in the first place.
The life of a Roman citizen though?
Cicero's trial over the corruption of the Roman Governor of Sicily, who was guilty of murder, stealing state funds, and even trying to bribe the very court that was prosecuting him all seem to be serious offenses which would warrant death. Despite conviction, he was fined and released.
The Roman Citizen enjoyed several rights, even their slaves came to, no matter where he traveled within the Empire. They certainly and seemed to enjoy a great deal of protection. Still, there's no doubt that the army itself which was mostly comprised of people seeking said citizenship, was a massive meat grinder. This may have changed going into the later centuries, but the 1st century Roman Citizen was subject to many of the same rights we are today.
Don't overestimate the tenacity of our ancestors. They lived harsh lives, and men were much harder than those of today, but they still suffered the same emotion and psychological pain we do. All this information regarding combat wasn't that of just the Romans, but of all pre-modern warfare, and several pre-modern European societies were nearly as soft as we are.
Quote:From my own experiences in combat and from my extensive reading on the subject, people don't generally fear killing, they fear risking their lives and getting hurt.
I completely agree. Wasn't the bow/sling (ranged combat) the single most important military invention in our history? It basically was responsible for the creation of armies, large battles, and war as people feared death less than when we were still running around with clubs and knives.
Quote:As to the fallen wounded posing a threat, most people felled by a spear thrust or from a slash of a sword are highly unlikely to do anything other than be in a great deal of pain and wont have anything other than survival on their minds.
Are you sure? Most modern homocides involving stab wounds are bloody, long, and horrifying. People often take 20+ wounds until they're mortally wounded, and continue to fight for their lives for minutes.
People, when under enough stress and enough adrenaline in their blood, can receive a gunshot wound which is far more traumatic than a slash/thrust, and not even know they were hit until they feel the blood. I'm sure there were more than a few soldiers who were able to shrug off the pain and keep fighting until the very, very end. We overestimate the number of wounded who died.
It's Visby itself that shows us that several of the men had been wounded in previous battles, survived their wounds, and fully recovered. Wounds we'd immediately think were deadly without the advent of surgery and antibiotics. Nevertheless, the dying and dead did serve as an obstacle on the Battlefield. Their equipment was probably picked up and used frequently.
Quote:"Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
This is the truest quote about soldiers I've ever heard, as accurate for ancient warfare as it still is for modern warfare.
I agree. This is something I wish I could see. The berserker at the Battle of Stamford bridge that held up the entire Saxon army, without armor, slaying 3 dozen Saxons with an axe before being killed by deception. The Romans have a similar account in the form of Horatius Cocles, who also made a last stand at a bridge, and was able to hold off an army long enough to save Rome.
I'd say there's quite a bit of truth to both. The 1%'ers were probably terribly effective as nobody would be eager to fight a man who had no fear, and was dispatching your comrades with ruthless efficiency. I really wish we knew what Viking berserkers took to become so entranced. They'd kill friend or foe in their blind rage, they were clearly intoxicated. A good way to multiply the number of 1%'ers in your army though.
If armor provided troops with a degree of superiority or aura of invulnerability, regardless of its true effectiveness, then I'd say it's already done it's job. That may be why there are examples of butted mail out there, or other armors which were probably ineffective. The soldiers themselves would not know until it was too late. WW1/WW2 helmets? Rarely stopped a bullet. But any little bit helps, especially when it comes to getting your soldiers to risk their lives in the first place.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
