[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[JaM]

my few lines on this topic:

Human Psychology is the same, it doesn't changes just because society values life less or more. Every single normal human being is not suicidal,and would struggle against dangers where he could possible lose life. His instincts would kick in and would try to survive, its coded into our DNA..

for example whole drowning happens only after several minutes of actual drowning. Human body disables certain functions to preserve the oxygen for vital organs. Thats why deep sea divers always go down at least in pair with a guys with a full diving set, so when they lose consciousness he can get them up.

but back to combat psychology - large majority of men would not put themselves into danger. Of course, as in any society, there would be a certain percentage of men who are psychologically "changed" and would actually seek direct danger, but that's not what the average human would do. Average soldier would look at his own protection, hitting and killing an enemy in close combat would be his last concern, and he would only do that if he is sure with own safety. Plus, a large amount of population would be practically "cowards" who would just turn and run once in vicinity of danger.

So actual close combat would be a clash of two groups of men, where everybody tries to keep himself at distance from the danger, and strike from protected position, while on both sides there would be few "brave" who would actually fight to kill, not looking for own safety. Yet, if one group gets into slightly disadvantageous position, those cowardly would just turn and run away, while others, knowing they don't have anybody backing them would have no choice but run as well..

Personally, i like the work of Alexander Zhmodikov on this topic, who suggested that Roman Legionarii didn't only use their pila at the charge, but actually used them continuously during entire battle. Units clashed for few minutes, then separated, reorganized, and clashed again, and javelins were quite ideal weapon to reach not so distant enemy before another clash. Battles therefore were practically a sum of multiple luls and clashes on the battlefield, with relatively low losses from direct fighting, until one side's morale broke. Typically, there was about 5% casualties taken from direct fighting, which was usually same on both sides, then when rout happened, routing side was just decimated by the victors, creating those huge casualties we are reading about..

Human Psychology is also main reason why i dont buy the teories about Hoplite pushing matches. Soldiers in front would really hate to be pushed towards the enemy while they are fighting them.. to fight, you need space, but if you are pushed in the back from behind, your own men are denying you the space to fight effectively, which would just create a rout much easily

[Bryan]

my few lines on this topic:

Human Psychology is the same, it doesn't changes just because society values life less or more. 

Do you regular beat your family's slaves when they are insolent? Do you abandon girl babies to their deaths? Do you murder your wife if she surrenders her virtue? As a military officer, did you execute one in ten soldiers when they show cowardice? Did you have soldiers who'd fallen asleep on guard stoned to death in the morning. 

All of these were accepted in the ancient world. All of them would be seen as horrific if they happened now. Therefore human psychology changes, because the ways people interpret and deal with stimuli changes. 

Its well known that certain ancient peoples didn't have what it took, culturally, to fight well as "heavy infantry", that they shy'd away from close combat, they didn't take to the Roman level of discipline, but meanwhile they still excelled at other roles in battle. Romans couldn't take Africans or Gauls or Syrians and simply turn them into legionaires overnight, it took Romanizing them. Because culture plays a major part in how people fight. 

Even to this day, this is well known. Ask any combat veteran of the Global War on Terror and they'll tell you that Iraqis and Afghans don't fight like us, they fight much differently, and even when we try to teach them to fight like us they don't do it well. Because it isn't natural to them. Why Arabs Lose Wars This shows that even in the current age, we're not all similar at all.

This is all about learned behavior. The learned behavior you possess is not the same as myself. And it most certainly isn't the same as a Roman infantrymen in the 1st Cent. BC.

[ValentinianVictrix]

The other point to take into account is your willingness to face death and die based on your absolute belief in a religious viewpoint. I would suspect there are few genuine true religious believers on this forum, most of us have quite atheist view points. That is why we cannot understand terrorists who appear to be willing to strap explosives to their bodies and blow themselves and everyone else around them to kingdom come.

I have no idea how the ordinary person viewed the world around them 2000 years ago, or even 200 years ago because I live in the world of TV's, mobile phones, computers, the internet, motor cars, aeroplanes, rockets, clean running water on demand, cooking facilities that cooks food that does not kill me, adequate housing, at least one good meal per day that contains meat, newspapers, good transport facilities etc etc etc.

[JaM]

Do you regular beat your family's slaves when they are insolent? Do you abandon girl babies to their deaths? Do you murder your wife if she surrenders her virtue? As a military officer, did you execute one in ten soldiers when they show cowardice? Did you have soldiers who'd fallen asleep on guard stoned to death in the morning. 

All of these were accepted in the ancient world. All of them would be seen as horrific if they happened now. Therefore human psychology changes, because the ways people interpret and deal with stimuli changes. 

Its well known that certain ancient peoples didn't have what it took, culturally, to fight well as "heavy infantry", that they shy'd away from close combat, they didn't take to the Roman level of discipline, but meanwhile they still excelled at other roles in battle. Romans couldn't take Africans or Gauls or Syrians and simply turn them into legionaires overnight, it took Romanizing them. Because culture plays a major part in how people fight. 

Even to this day, this is well known. Ask any combat veteran of the Global War on Terror and they'll tell you that Iraqis and Afghans don't fight like us, they fight much differently, and even when we try to teach them to fight like us they don't do it well. Because it isn't natural to them. Why Arabs Lose Wars This shows that even in the current age, we're not all similar at all.

This is all about learned behavior. The learned behavior you possess is not the same as myself. And it most certainly isn't the same as a Roman infantrymen in the 1st Cent. BC.

Yet it has nothing to do with the human psychology and basic instinct to avoid being killed.. you cant expect them just being able to completely act against those and disregard own life on a whim. Human being is not a terminator...


And no, you cant expect entire citizen armies to be  composed of some fanatics... they were not. they were ordinary citizens who had to fight the war. Yes, there might be few that disregarded own life, but it was not something that would be done by mass of men. 

Overcoming human self-preservance instincts is not easy, and even those religions fanatics usually use some drugs/alcohol to get past that point...

must say im quite surprised Bryan its an issue for you if you served with military..  "heroes usually don't come back from wars" is quite old saying.. i really doubt large majority of soldiers would be running around with the prime intention to kill enemy while not looking at own safety in the first place... I don't say its not possible for certain individuals, but its something that should not be expected from everybody... and that's the main point of the combat psychology....

[Bryan]

Do you regular beat your family's slaves when they are insolent? Do you abandon girl babies to their deaths? Do you murder your wife if she surrenders her virtue? As a military officer, did you execute one in ten soldiers when they show cowardice? Did you have soldiers who'd fallen asleep on guard stoned to death in the morning. 

All of these were accepted in the ancient world. All of them would be seen as horrific if they happened now. Therefore human psychology changes, because the ways people interpret and deal with stimuli changes. 

Its well known that certain ancient peoples didn't have what it took, culturally, to fight well as "heavy infantry", that they shy'd away from close combat, they didn't take to the Roman level of discipline, but meanwhile they still excelled at other roles in battle. Romans couldn't take Africans or Gauls or Syrians and simply turn them into legionaires overnight, it took Romanizing them. Because culture plays a major part in how people fight. 

Even to this day, this is well known. Ask any combat veteran of the Global War on Terror and they'll tell you that Iraqis and Afghans don't fight like us, they fight much differently, and even when we try to teach them to fight like us they don't do it well. Because it isn't natural to them. Why Arabs Lose Wars This shows that even in the current age, we're not all similar at all.

This is all about learned behavior. The learned behavior you possess is not the same as myself. And it most certainly isn't the same as a Roman infantrymen in the 1st Cent. BC.

Yet it has nothing to do with the human psychology and basic instinct to avoid being killed.. you cant expect them just being able to completely act against those and disregard own life on a whim. Human being is not a terminator...


And no, you cant expect entire citizen armies to be  composed of some fanatics... they were not. they were ordinary citizens who had to fight the war. Yes, there might be few that disregarded own life, but it was not something that would be done by mass of men. 

Overcoming human self-preservance instincts is not easy, and even those religions fanatics usually use some drugs/alcohol to get past that point...

must say im quite surprised Bryan its an issue for you if you served with military..  "heroes usually don't come back from wars" is quite old saying.. i really doubt large majority of soldiers would be running around with the prime intention to kill enemy while not looking at own safety in the first place... I don't say its not possible for certain individuals, but its something that should not be expected from everybody... and that's the main point of the combat psychology....

"Psychology: the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context."

Key word in this definition is "affecting behavior." Behavior is not constant, its part of culture, learned upbringing, environment. It changes. Even in the modern world, psychology of an American is going to be different than someone from China or Saudi Arabia. A man is going to be different than a woman. Because behavior is relative. 

You're making leaps of faith and generalized comments about avoidance to danger that is based on your understanding of risk and violence, not THEIR'S. Even modern soldiers differ greatly in terms of levels of risk they are willing to take. An American soldier would never walk up to a live IED and simply start yanking wires out of it, because it might blow up. Iraqis, Afghans, that's how their specialist do it. Sometimes they explode while doing it. They understand circuitry and electricity. They still do it. Because they do not fear death at that moment, because if they die, then "God Wills Its", Inshallah. They are fatalistic. Much like ancient cultures were also fatalistic, highly superstitious, many did not fear death or serious bodily harm in the manner in which modern people today do. This is because people have changed. 

Sure, are there plenty examples to show that Romans possessed fear and the sense to protect their own hide? Of course, I'm not debating that. But I'm saying that the Romans weren't us. They didn't believe in the same things we do. They didn't value life in the exact same manner we do. They were an ancient people with ancient ideals and an ancient culture. Keep them in their context when describing their psychology. The Romans were a culture that regularly practiced suicide as a way of avoiding shame. Whose mindset of warfare was virtus, manly martial virtue, tamed by discipline. Where the ancient accounts of battle of flush with examples of Romans who were so enthusiastic to close with the enemy that they dropped their pila just to get the chance to get at the enemy with gladii. 

There are plenty of examples of the historical record of Romans willingly fighting in close combat in the manner you think was suicidal. They still did it, often enough that their very infantry fighting tactics, armor, and arms all morphed because of the emphasis in mindset to close with the enemy and kill him in the closest possible distance.

[JaM]

You seems to not understand what i'm writing about... Self-preservation is not something ordinary man can simply switch off and on as he pleases.. you usually have to overcome it, no matter who you are.. its an instinct that keeps you alive, that prevents you doing things that could be potentially dangerous..  yes, some men were able to overcome it, but it was not a norm that can be expected from every single soldier, and such a feat was usually something exceptional, and worth mentioning by somebody important.(like Caesar for example)

and also you cannot build up a combat formation theory, that just completely goes against such a base human instincts.. If anything, their combat tactics would follow these "rules", try to bend them to gain advantage (using same thing against the enemy, make him withdraw/run from battle first) People are not mindless robots. They would not stand and hack each other into pieces until killed.

[Bryan]

You seems to not understand what i'm writing about... Self-preservation is not something ordinary man can simply switch off and on as he pleases.. you usually have to overcome it, no matter who you are.. its an instinct that keeps you alive, that prevents you doing things that could be potentially dangerous..  yes, some men were able to overcome it, but it was not a norm that can be expected from every single soldier, and such a feat was usually something exceptional, and worth mentioning by somebody important.(like Caesar for example)

and also you cannot build up a combat formation theory, that just completely goes against such a base human instincts.. If anything, their combat tactics would follow these "rules", try to bend them to gain advantage (using same thing against the enemy, make him withdraw/run from battle first) People are not mindless robots. They would not stand and hack each other into pieces until killed.

A WWI front line soldier had a much large chance of becoming a casualty by going over the top of the trenches in a major offensive, where tens, even hundreds of thousands died in a week's time. I am a former soldier, who served in combat, and I would NEVER have gone over the top. No way. And yet they still did it. Why?

Because times change, people change. Mentality and mindset changes. What you believe is suicidal is not what I believe is suicidal, and what I believe is not what someone from Iraq believes now, or a Frenchman in 1916, let alone a Roman in 52 BC.

[JaM]

thats not the same. To modern people for example putting a line of musketeers 50m away from each other and firing a mass volley against each other might seem like a suicide, yet in those times, it was actually not that lethal and hundreds of bullets had to be fired for a single casualty. Yet men stood there and fired against each other, because they didnt see their enemy, and simple repetitive work of reloading a musket and firing it, while everything was obscured by a smoke was enough for them to just keep going.. they could not see what their fire is doing, and did not see enemy firing at them..  Yet, when they saw enemy closing at them with bayonets, they in 99% just turned around and ran for their lives...

Same with WW1 - you cant see enemy, you know danger is there, but its not as "personal" as close combat would be... and again - those men who ran over the trench, were actually trying to survive.. they were not going over, to kill enemy, but they were going over, as they had no choice (if they refused, they would be executed). AGAIN - they were looking for themselves in the first place, they were not doing it, because they wanted to kill men at the other side... killing enemy was not their main motivation

---

let me ask you a question - would you intentionally stand up, or get away from a cover in the middle of a gunfight just to get a better aim at the enemy so you could kill him? I guess you wouldn't. Majority of shots fired in modern combat are to suppress the enemy, nobody in their sane mind would make himself a better target just to kill the other guy.. (unless of course he is insane - which kinda fell quite accurately to a lot of those insurgent fanatics..)

And thats the main point - ancient people would as well, look at their own safety first - they would take cover behind the shield, stay in formation, and would not unnecessarily drop their cover to manage a hit, but would mostly hit from safe position, no matter how lethal that hit would be.. actual lethality of an attack would be probably the last concern they would have, while making sure they are not killed would be the first one.. (which is also one of the reasons i don't buy all those theorizing about ideal spear use vs damage potential as the prime deciding factor how spear was used)

and again, i'm talking about average Joe, ordinary Legionary, not some crazy psychically damaged entity that has nothing to live for.. of course there were also such men in combat units, but they were definitely not in significant number, and they usually didnt survived those battles...

[Bryan]

You're still comparing apples and oranges. You can't describe the mindset of ancient warfare in comparison with the idea of what you would do in battle or how you would think, because unless you've done it, you can't know. Its like a virgin discussing sex. Its a crap shoot really about who does well under fire, and who does not. And within that framework is a whole lot of leeway, where you have some guys who are pissing down the leg scared, all the time, but still get the job done, to the guys who are either too aggressive (or too stupid) to worry about trivial things like dying in order to get close with and kill the enemy and glory in the bloodshed.

Frankly, even where I fit in on the spectrum of risk vs reward on the military side is not where everyone else fits. One, I hate waste, casualties taken unnecessarily infuriate me, where as when they are taken out of necessity, I have zero qualms about it. Two, I don't like takiing unnecessary risks, and that pertains not just to warfare but in life. I have a strong sense of responsibility, bundles of common sense, pragmatism, a healthy dose of negativity (to keep my legs firmly attached to the ground), and fear of the unknown (which includes the possibilities that no afterlife exists). Also, I don't possess the concept of glory much anymore, because my patriotism has been replaced largely by cynicism. But that's just me. I did well but I didn't enjoy combat like the extremist did. But man oh man, did I meet a whole lot of extremists, who loved everything about battle, combat, killing, explosions, and everyhthing else. And if modern America could still produce such traits among so many, then Ancient Rome would have no problems at all. Romans were highly patriotic, highly fatalistic, their military culture was influenced highly by stoicism (one of the reasons that suicide wasn't just condoned by encouraged in some circumstances).

Modern soldiers' attitudes with warfare are so completely different from one another that its impossible to really generalize all of us together, you'd be wrong trying to describe a single mentality of the American soldier of the 21st century, let alone modern Americans vs. modern Iraqis (I mention them because I worked with them a lot and know how they fight intimately), let alone Modern Americans vs. Ancient Romans (or Greeks). There is no way you can try to shoehorn the human martial mindset based on your own lack of experience in this manner. We all think differently, believe in different things.

I wont even touch your WWI analysis of combat, its so poorly described it really does you no good bringing it up in a debate. The only part I'll touch is your comment that if they dont go forward they would be executed. Romans did the same thing, those that refused to attack would be charged individually with cowardice, likely they'd be summarily executed or killed by a mate during the thick of things, if not they'd survive to be tried and executed by the army and legion's commander's following the battle. If it was a large group, they also had a method for that too, decimation. The French army of WWI actually took pages from the Roman way of discipline when they conducted mass executions of soldiers whose names were drawn randomly from the unit accused of cowardice.


ETA: None of this was meant to offend. Combat is a very touchy subject, one I'm willing to discuss, but its not something I describe well, because of the emotions it stirs up. I don't mean PTSD, I mean its just like re-remembering any very emotional event in your life that had more long term effects on changing the person than nearly any other short time in my life. One of the reasons I know Romans were so different in mindset is that the raw emotions that come about in warfare produce actions, killing, a disregard for modern/conventional sense of decency or morality, trench humor, a level of numbness to cruelty and suffering that borders on the psychotic. In modern times it takes some very trying times in normal civilian life to ever face such morale qualms, other than major natural disasters or crime waves. But in ancient Rome, I just described the Roman childhood, let alone what would experience in warfare, a time when most things we would consider barbaric war crimes, the Romans did by custom. Mass murder of unarmed, slaughters of women and children, plunder, rape, all of these things were simply part of ancient Roman warfare.

[JaM]

no, its you who failed to understand it... All i'm saying that it doesn't matter what era soldier lived in, he always put his own life over life of the enemy... so his own survivability has always much higher priority, than ability to kill an enemy.. and everything else just follows this very base principle... thats why soldier rout and run away, thats why they fight to the death, if they are cut off and have no way out..


And regarding example from WW1, i just put it into same level - you were comparing apples and oranges..  charging from a trench doesn't automatically mean that man is charging to kill the enemy, on contrary, they did it because they had no other choice.


and btw, if ancient people had reduced self-preservation instinct, they would not carry shields but would just hack each other with just the weapons... at least that is what you are actually suggesting..  Shield is a perfect example that own survivability had much more importance than ability to kill the enemy.

[CNV2855]

The reason we know about decimation, or people being stoned to death for minor crimes, is because the event was so noteworthy that it traveled (by worth of mouth) to the location of the author, which then took the time to write those events down into either stone or papyrus, both extremely valuable commodities.  People rarely choose to write about true day-to-day activity, almost all writing is based on outliers (minor noteworthy events).

If a visitor traveled to our present day, from the future, and tried to extrapolate what our society was like based on major news story he'd conclude our society was extremely violent, racist, and homophobic. Not that that isn't true, but I'm just saying that you can't really judge a society based on one action but instead have to look at the greater context.

How often was decimation really administered? I can only recall Crassus using it during the Servile War. That was a war in which Rome itself was facing an existential threat, and probably had a large number of people who were forced to join. You can arbitrarily kill drafted or conscripted men, but as soon as you start doing it to volunteers then you'll face a massive shortage of those volunteers. I doubt Crassus would have used that same punishment on his army that invaded Parthia (which was a volunteer army). Can anyone find one instance of it being used on men who had volunteered for service?

Despite these examples, even at the height of Rome’s power, this particular form of punishment was far from commonplace and was even considered controversial. In fact, because it exacted such a heavy toll on both manpower and morale, it was only ordered in exceptional cases. In all, only a handful of decimations were ever recorded. Despite this, at least one Roman emperor took the practice a little too far.

---

Because behavior is relative.

To an extent. Our response to life threatening situations is hard coded.

Even modern soldiers differ greatly in terms of levels of risk they are willing to take. An American soldier would never walk up to a live IED and simply start yanking wires out of it, because it might blow up. Iraqis, Afghans, that's how their specialist do it. Sometimes they explode while doing it. They understand circuitry and electricity. They still do it. Because they do not fear death at that moment, because if they die, then "God Wills Its", Inshallah. They are fatalistic. Much like ancient cultures were also fatalistic, highly superstitious, many did not fear death or serious bodily harm in the manner in which modern people today do. This is because people have changed.

This is bullshit. The Iraqi Army fled from ISIS during their push to take Mogul before shots were even fired. You're taking what you've seen from religious fanatics and extrapolating that on entire societies. There are perhaps a few hundred thousand religious fanatics in the world. A world which has a population of over 7 billion.

Can culture have an effect on the % of people willing to put themselves into harms way? Absolutely. A much higher percentage of people volunteer for the military within the South than the much more populated Northern states. However, the % of people willing to fight, from a society vs the % of people who actually want to continue fighting once fighting has broken out are two completely different variables. The religious fanatics that are willing to strap on a bomb? Those are a very small group of people from all over the world. You really can't say that those few men represent the societies and nations they're from; even Americans/Britons have traveled to fight for ISIS.

The average person doesn't want to die, for religion or state. This is how our bodies work.

[Bryan]

no, its you who failed to understand it... All i'm saying that it doesn't matter what era soldier lived in, he always put his own life over life of the enemy... so his own survivability has always much higher priority, than ability to kill an enemy.. and everything else just follows this very base principle... thats why soldier rout and run away, thats why they fight to the death, if they are cut off and have no way out..


And regarding example from WW1, i just put it into same level - you were comparing apples and oranges..  charging from a trench doesn't automatically mean that man is charging to kill the enemy, on contrary, they did it because they had no other choice.

Part in bold is wrong. You have no frame of reference to discuss it. Soldiers die routinely from fighting to the death on an individual level, and not when cut off and have no escape. This topic is so unbelievable, because again, I have someone who has never actually experienced battle telling someone who has that things they saw regularly either didn't happen or weren't usual. I already told you straight out before that your mindset about what fighting men do or don't think about is wrong, and that's as of right now, 21st century USA. Frankly, if you're this wrong about the mindset of contemporary soldiers I can't think how your theories are still the same for ancient warrior cultures dating back to the age literally named after the mineral used primarily for weapons. 

This whole discussion reeks of those websites and forums where the consensus is that most bayonet attacks in the Napoleonic war rarely resulted in actual hand to hand combat. Or that humans have a natural aversion to killing. These "internet-isms", "facts" that routinely make their way through the internet on a near daily basis on topics of history and warfare, they are either outright wrong, or they are generalizing in such a way that the actual lessons don't apply outside the time and place in which they happened (ie., they aren't universal). 

Romans and their enemies rarely ran away from each other before a clash occurred. And Romans of the Republic were not like 19th century conscripted farmboys who'd never held a weapon in their life, who came from backgrounds devoid of actual martial traditions passed down father to son. They were much more martial minded than the average French Grand Armee soldier or British low class who took the King's Shilling, largely for the food and 1/2 pint liquor ration. 

Romans came from warrior cultures, endlessly at war, where social advancement was tied to warfare. Where primary Gods were devoted to war (Mars was part of the Roman Archaic Triad). Where it was customary for fathers to educate their children in the ways of warfare (one reason that standardized "basic training" didn't happen until the Late Republic was that previously the family was the one who educated the young soldier in combat training).

[JaM]

I see that it is pointless to have a discussion with you. i'll just put you on my ignore list as this is just futile.



and for everybody else, whole notion that Romans being a militaristic would have any effect on actual human base instincts, there is a simple proof how misguided that idea is - There are so many battles out there where Roman Legionaries were routed, run away, even after suffering just small percentage of casualties, its not even funny... Amount of casualties taken from direct combat was usually very low, basically not higher than 5% over the whole battle FOR BOTH SIDES, while losing side usually took remaining casualties once it routed. And those average 5 percents are not just melee casualties, but also ranged casualties taken from javelins, arrows, stones or any sort of artillery that might be used by opposing armies...

[CNV2855]

I really do think people generally have an aversion to killing. That aversion is relative to how de-humanized their opponent is. I doubt Chris Kyle would have bragged about killing 250 Caucasian soldiers. Is that aversion enough to stop them from defending themselves? Probably not. But it is enough to make them regret their actions for the rest of their lives, as was the case for most GI's who killed Germans. Enough to give them nightmares or PTSD.

We're talking about human physiology. Flight or fight response.

I recall one Seal Team 6 member saying on television that he knew it was time to get out when he stopped getting an adrenaline rush in firefights. So even the most disciplined, and battle hardened soldiers suffer the same human response as everybody else.

Also keep in mind, you're really getting into the realm of psychology with melee battles, as there are factors such as crowd mechanics to consider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster

---

 I am a former soldier, who served in combat, and I would NEVER have gone over the top. No way. And yet they still did it. Why?

They didn't value life any more or less than you did.  They did it because the men next to them were doing it.  If your entire company was enlisted for a suicidal mission, would you abandon them?  

Robert the Bruce: I respect what you said, but remember that these men have lands and castles. It's much to risk.
William Wallace: And the common man, who bleeds on the battlefield, does he risk less?

Let's keep in mind that they didn't have simulators, video games, or movies. No amount of culture or swinging with wooden swords would prepare them for the realities of combat.

[Bryan]

There are plenty of infantryman's non-fictional account of WWII where the writer, a combat veteran, describes a clear lack of compassion for the enemy, where they killed many more individual enemy than Chris Kyle did and had no qualms at all about it, especially the SS. It was that sort of war, where often the enemy is evil and killing them is a good thing. Call it de-humanizing, but do you know who dehumanized their enemy on a regular basis, who literally coined the term barbarian to refer to all outsiders? Greeks and Romans.

Adrenaline dumps aren't a bad thing. Some people choose to have very dangerous, on the edge hobbies, sky diving, downhill mountain biking, motorcycles, all because they love the thrill of an adrenaline high. It doesn't have to mean fear, often it means euphoria, which includes the combat high, which I can flat out say is one of the grandest feelings I've ever felt in my life, a level of "Right now is so awesome its hard to describe it" feeling that few people really can describe.

That comment you're talking about came from Matt Bissonnette, one of the Navy Special Warfare Development Group, the unit's common but incorrect nickname is SEAL Team 6. Nobody that is selected to a unit like that is shy of an adrenaline dump, meaning someone who interprets it as fear. To even get onto one of those teams means years of being a vanilla SEAL, then getting personally selected to go to their selection, then a "rigorous" vetting process and probationary period that is famous for a level of hazing that makes the pretty nasty hazing normal SEALs do seem like nothing. If you take Bisonnette's comments to mean he stopped fighting when he stopped getting scared, you're wrong in that assumption. I've worked with those guys, they don't get more "Type A" than units like DEVGRU.