Punishment for cowardice or disobediance in the Roman Army

[basemetal]

The courage of the Roman Legions is legendary.
Any ideas on the punishments for dereliction of duty, cowardice in the face of the enemy, or even simple failure in battle? (besides the ultimate one that any soldier faces-death or imprisonment by the enemy) 
I mean any published or verified not just the assumption of punishable by death that we may seem to assume?
Modern armies (at least through WWII) had severe punishments for any of the above.
Also the punishment for way simple screw ups in the performance of duty by Roman Soldiers?

[wolfgang336]

There was decimation... every tenth man is killed (on the cross?).

Evan

[mdelvalle]

Basemetal, I hope to make myself understand, as I have understood the loyalty of the army was reinforced by the oath (sacrament) of fidelity and obedience to the superiors and of not deserting of the battle. The discipline lacks were punished according to their graveness with the suspension of the salary, with lashes or until with the death. The punishment for complete units consisted on decimating them, that is to say, to apply the death penalty to one of each ten legionaries.
Mario

[vic9128]

There was decimation... every tenth man is killed (on the cross?).

every tenth man (usually applied in a cohort) was selected by lot to be clubbed or stoned to death by his remaining comrades. A smaller punishment (like being fed barley instead of wheat) was given to the rest. There were actually only a few instances were decimation was carried out (it tended to make the commander very unpopular).

[basemetal]

Thank you all so much.  I knew of the decimation technique.
It was used in WWI by the French for cowardace in battle because some soldiers refused to charge the German trenches  which were defended by machine guns. 
One man was subjected to firing squad while lashed to a stretcher.
I also saw on an historical presentation on the History Channel that the other legionaires were sometimes ordered to stone or beat to death percieved "cowards".

Fact is like most disiplinarmies in history, the roman legions fought to the death for whatever reason.

Again I bring up the (I cannot supply the exact verification) that an historian wrote:
"The barbarians consist of "warriors". Renouned in battle, having killed many enemies. Fearsome to their kinsmen and legendary among their tribe.
Capering heros that are but meat to the swords of the _____th Legion.
When the barbarians attack all plan and preparation is lost to the lust of battle. Their leaders they ignore in the heat of battle and push forward valianlty to secure "honor" and "renoun" for themselves.
They die first upon the spears of the Legions. 
The remainder attack as an undisiplined mob (or run away) and are slaughtered."
As a military veteran and as a student of history I am still dismayed by the modern protrayal of modern soldiers as "warriors" made popular by the press and military recriutment.
A Legionare would have done two things if you had addressed him as a "warrior".
Laughed and turned away, or killed you on the spot (unless you had the protection of the roman officers). Real soldiers of whatever age were and are not stupid.

[virtvsprobi]

Considering that the disciplined Roman legions got trounced many times by barbarian warriors, maybe you should not completely discount
the possibility that they had good plans and good tactics. They weren't stupid either.

Sheesh... I'm defending barbarians! 

G/<

[Robert_Brenchley]

I suspect what they had was better discipline; they were full-time professional soldiers, while most 'barbarian' armies would have been part-timers who farmed for most of their lives and turned out for battle when required to. There's an interesting analysis of Classical-era battle tactics in 'Apocalypse', an account of the First Jewish Revolt by Neil Faulkner. He suggests that the legions fought in a line eight ranks deep, with the press of men at the back holding the front ranks in place. Only the two front ranks could actually engage the enemy, but because of the men behind, they were unable to back off. Officers stood at the back and encouraged the men. Battles were probably largely defensive, due to the nature of the formation; they'd have been reluctant to advance against determined opposition. As long as the line stood, the risk to the individual soldier probably wasn't that great, but once a line broke, it became a massacre. So if both sides lined up in formation, the battle largely became a question of which side had the discipline to stand in the face of what was doubtless a hail of missiles from the other side, with periodical bouts of pushing and shoving when one line or the other was persuaded to charge home. If one side wasn't in formation, it would have been a slaughter.

[Dapsul]

My favourite exemplum is to compare the punishments for sleeping at nightwatch: Polybios 6,36 says about the Roman army, that the one found asleep was immediately beaten to death with clubs and stones by his comrades. This was totally unfamiliar for Greeks or Macedonians: We have a Macedonian military reglement of the time of Philipp V, found at Amphipolis (SEG 40,524), which specifies the fine for the same crime - the sleeper had to pay one drachm! Two worlds IMHO, and the army of Philipp was not ineffective.
Compare the misunderstanding between the Roman consul Crassus and the Greek magistrate of Mylasa in the time of the Aristonikos war. (Gellius 1,13,11ff. - too complicated for a spontaneous English summary.)

Frank

[Jochen]

Der kleine Pauly:

Desertor. As desertor everyone was regarded, who leaves the army arbitrary (Dig. 49, 16,14). As desertio was reckoned too the leaving of the file at march, during the battle (Ios. bell. Iud. 3, 10, 3) and of the post (Suet. Oct. 24; Otho 11). Desertor too was he who selled all his weapons or forsook his superior (Dig. 49, 16, 317). As a general rule the desertor was punished with death (Dig. 49, 16, 5; Amm. 21, 12), mutilation (Amm. 29, 5, 22. 31. 49), loss of freedom and corporal punishment (Frontin 4, 1, 20), also displacement to another troop or deportation (Dig. 49, 16, 3, 9). Recruits and military persons, who leave their troop only to attain another troop were punished milder.

Best regards 

[wolfgang336]

Not sure I really understand that last line:

Recruits and military persons, who leave their troop only to attain another troop were punished milder.

Is this to say that those who ran off in order to raise more troops for the army were punished much more mildly? Or am I just interpreting this wrong?

Evan

[vic9128]

Not sure I really understand that last line:

This is talking about soldiers who desert their units and join another.

[Jochen]

Sorry, it's my bad school English! Victor is right!

Best regards

[virtvsprobi]

"This is talking about soldiers who desert their units and join another."

C. - "I'm so sick of being the errand boy in the 6th cohort, I will try my luck with the 5th!"
M. C. L. - "Caius, don't do it, they will cut off your ears!"

I think that self "re-assignment" wasn't kindly looked upon in ANY army.

the sleeper had to pay one drachm! Two worlds IMHO, and the army of Philipp was not ineffective.

That's a great example. Indeed two different worlds. Although I'm sure that if sleeping on duty led to some disaster,
the snoozer ended up paying not drachms, but obols to Charon.

G/<

[virtvsprobi]

As long as the line stood, the risk to the individual soldier probably wasn't that great, but once a line broke, it became a massacre.

Robert,

I recall reading one account of an early medieval battle where the pushing and shoving between the opposing lines went
on for hours without much loss of life. Neither side seemed to be able to gain any advantage. Until the sun was directly in
the eyes of the defending army, at which time enemy cavalry attacked from the flanks. After that, indeed a massacre.

G/<

[Jochen]

As long as the line stood, the risk to the individual soldier probably wasn't that great, but once a line broke, it became a massacre.

Just that was the conclusion John Keegan drew in his work about the Battle of Azincourt (1415) in his book 'The Face of Battle', 1975 Jonathan Cape Ltd., London. Highly recommeded!

Best regards

[LordBest]

I doubt desertion in combat was particularly common in Roman times. In the middle of a battle, even if you think its going badly, it will be hard to get away, the nif you do and the Roman line breaks you will probably get caught by the enemy when they sack the countryside and hunt down any fleeing forces. If the line doesnt break and the Romans win, then people will notice your absence and you will have some trouble explaining,
"Well, that was a close battle Marius. Hey, have you seen Gaius around?"
"Meh, he is either dead or the little irrumator has deserted again."
"Again? How many times can one person be crucified?
"That is a question for the ages..."
Etc.
                                                              LordBest.

[basemetal]

Lol..I love it when senior members start vocalizing conversations among therotical individuals in ancient history.  That for me is what makes the hobby real.  And this is not a cristicisim.  We need more of it.
Any who have been in the military know that it would not take much for the "brass" to order severe punishments for dereliction of duty.
The Roman Legions were indeed brave, and mostly stuck to a code of behaviour as do most modern armies.  But modern military codes of behaviour were lacking and in the field, the only discipline was Draconian. Roman troops did not undergo "basic training" or did they? That would make a good post in and of itself. 
By basic training, I mean not just learning the mechanics but learning to sacrifice the good of you for the good of the greater number-one of the basic tenets of modern military training. I remember right before the end of boot school the "rebels" at the start some of them were saying "We could have been an outstanding squad if we could have squared away about 10% of the troop." Of course being combat troopers just like a thousand generations before them...they used much more graphic language. Lol

[virtvsprobi]

I love it when senior members start vocalizing conversations among therotical individuals in ancient history

Woddya mean "theoretical?". Marcus Cunctator Lentulus was not some hypothetical figment, he was one of my ancestors.
His letters are preserved in the supplement* to the Vitae of Probus and Diocletian. Whence I learned everything he ever said.

As for where LB is getting his stuff, look no deeper than the jug of cheap cervesa australis** to which he's perpetually attached.
Just like Pooh Bear to his hunny jar. 

Oh, and who the heck are you calling a senior? I'm barely out of my teens, yo.

:Aramaic_kaf:

* - Augmenta Epistolaria Flavi Vopisci Syracusii, vol. X-LXIV cum chartulae, sigilae et brassicae.

For the quoted passage see AEFVS, vol. XI, chap. LV, commencing with line XXL:

C. - "Fatigatus ego constitutus goferus F companis, tempto fortuna mea cum E compania!"
M. C. L. - "Caius, non facio! Secaverunt oriculae tuae!"

Nota bene that this is military jargon, which doesn't follow normal rules of Latin grammar.
It took me a long while to make heads or tails of it, while grinding my teeth all the time,
because the military Latin of these grunts is even worse than my Pig Latin.

** - if not that, then it is the vermouth talking.

[Robert_Brenchley]

There must have been occasions in Roman history when cockups were made, orders were misinterpreted or stupid orders given, and units marched to death or glory like the Light Brigade at Balaclava. But I don't think they were too common in the annals of any reasonably victorious army.

[*Alex]

There must have been occasions in Roman history when cockups were made, orders were misinterpreted or stupid orders given, and units marched to death or glory like the Light Brigade at Balaclava. But I don't think they were too common in the annals of any reasonably victorious army.

One that comes to mind is Crassus at Carrhae in 53 B.C.

Alex.

[Enodia]

Thank you all so much.  I knew of the decimation technique.
It was used in WWI by the French for cowardace in battle because some soldiers refused to charge the German trenches  which were defended by machine guns. 
One man was subjected to firing squad while lashed to a stretcher.
I also saw on an historical presentation on the History Channel that the other legionaires were sometimes ordered to stone or beat to death percieved "cowards".

Fact is like most disiplinarmies in history, the roman legions fought to the death for whatever reason.

Again I bring up the (I cannot supply the exact verification) that an historian wrote:
"The barbarians consist of "warriors". Renouned in battle, having killed many enemies. Fearsome to their kinsmen and legendary among their tribe.
Capering heros that are but meat to the swords of the _____th Legion.
When the barbarians attack all plan and preparation is lost to the lust of battle. Their leaders they ignore in the heat of battle and push forward valianlty to secure "honor" and "renoun" for themselves.
They die first upon the spears of the Legions. 
The remainder attack as an undisiplined mob (or run away) and are slaughtered."
As a military veteran and as a student of history I am still dismayed by the modern protrayal of modern soldiers as "warriors" made popular by the press and military recriutment.
A Legionare would have done two things if you had addressed him as a "warrior".
Laughed and turned away, or killed you on the spot (unless you had the protection of the roman officers). Real soldiers of whatever age were and are not stupid.

see this tragic story told in the Stanley Kubrick movie 'Paths of Glory' (1958) with Kirk Douglas and Adolphe Menjou.

~ Peter

[klairday]

It all comes down to discipline. In America today, the punishment for desertion during war time is punishable by death. Rarely is it carried out, but it goes to show the severity of such an offense. A soldier who would desert his unit in those days would have been looked upon as traitors to their unit. Each unit views itself as a brotherhood, and when you would willfully desert it, even for another unit, it would basically be viewed as a "slap in the face" so to speak, to your fellow soldiers, and to your commander. I am not sure what the punishment was for this form of desertion (probably death in many cases), but it would have been harsh. To abandon your brothers in arms would have been very dishonorable then just as it is today. It hinders the mission, and it is an act of selfishness. Many of our present military traditions and standards have underlying relations to this very time period. As a military veteran myself, it is interesting to look back into history and see the similarities in thinking that we share today.

[Basemetallapless]

In regular modernly adopted  military law, this not from the present, but from WWII and earlier, a commander who saw or had reported to him cowardice in the face of the enemy, failure to obey a lawful
order, doing crap like "wasting the entire area" with no regard for friendly troops in the fire zone, would have been, had he seen such behaviour, required to stop such behavior or "nip it in the bud" by a battlefield execution of the perpretator.   Not acting would have landed the superior in prision, and acting would have technically made him eligable for a battlefield commendation.

People...gotta love 'em.

Bruce
Basemetal

[areich]

How long until we have a user called Basemetalonthetoilet? 

[Basemetallapless]

hmmm.....Basemetalinbedwithyour lady..........I kid because I care.  3 computers.....go figure.

Sorry I offended you with multiple logon names.