Decimation

One thing that I would like to see added to RTW is the concept of "decimation". This could add an interesting aspect to Roman armies, which could also serve to make the game a little harder as Roman factions - something it apparently needs.

If I remember right, the term "decimation" which we use today comes from the Latin "Decimae". This was a procedure that generals would undertake after a defeat. The procedure went thus:

1. Lose a battle
2. Form up the defeated Roman soldiers in a line
3. Kill every tenth soldier

The plan was to make sure the surviving soldiers didn't run away again next battle...

Of course, this would only have an effect if the Romans lost battles - something which doesn't happen very often when the player is controlling them! ~:handball:

Eh.... Seems a bit harsh... If you want to get rid of them, wouldn't it be more "pleasant" just to let them be sick and die when they are far away from home. Some kind of attrition based on the distance to their "home town".....

Harsh, but apparently realistic :)

The thing is, I figure something like attrition would exist for all factions. So the Romans would have decimation AND attrition! :D And as I said, it only seems to come into play when they lose, so it's not going to happen all the time. Although I might be wrong - it might be when they run away (it's possible for a unit to run away but the battle still be won, of course)

I believe it was optional and inflicted upon units that the army commander, rightly or wrongly, considered to have committed a particularly heinous crime, such as cowardice in battle. It could be quite satisfying to push the ‘decimation’ button after loosing a battle. I wonder what the effect on moral should be!

it was a practise, but it WASN'T commonly practised if you know what i mean. It was entirely up to the generals discretion and could be for any offense as far as i'm aware not just an army who ran from the field. It was i believe fairly controversial even back then, not that anyone would gainsay a general who wished to do it but it wasn't considered the ideal way to deal with a deserting army.
I think Crassus was famous for doing it to the legions he received to fight spartacus. The legions in question had actually broken a couple of times when facing spartacus's armies and crassus decimated them as one of his first orders of buisness when he took charge.
I think it wouldn't be bad as an option, perhaps available to do anytime rather than alwasy after a defeat. It could give like plus 2 morale for the next battle or something. Though i think it wasn't a common enough practise for me to be overly concerned if it's not included.

I often thought about decimation during a game ^^

I think that it could be added into the game. It could be applied to any unit, and would have as effect :

- If the unit had fled while not enduring more than 25 % losses in the previous battle, it would raise its morale by +2 for the next battle, and the morale of the whole army by +1 for 2 years.
- If the unit had fled while enduring between 25 % and 50 % losses in the previous battle, it would raise its morale by +1 for the next battle.
- If the unit had fled while enduring more than 50 % losses in the previous battle, it would have a -1 morale penalty for the next battle.
- If the unit had not fled, it would cause a -2 morale and discipline penalty in the whole army for 5 years (cumulative).

So decimation would be a tool usable to punish a cowardly unit, but it would backfire if used inconsiderately.

Errr...decimate yourself, buddies- it's not the poor soldiers that lost the battle - you were in charge ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad Tzepes

Errr...decimate yourself, buddies- it's not the poor soldiers that lost the battle - you were in charge ~;)

---

I'd like to see you say that to a Roman general back in there glory days.

Actually Krassus did take the blame for losing carrhae, but then again how did that word get out if none of the Romans returned home

I only found out this thing about decimation meaning a Roman military punishment relatively recently, from a TV doumentary of all places. I'd long had it in my head that it meant destruction of an army down to one tenth of its original size but, checking my dictionary, just now, that is listed as definition number 2 and has the comment "disapproved of by some speakers", indicating that it's considered a misuse of the word.

Definition number 1 is as stated previously in this thread but it says that it was "killing every tenth man (of eg mutinous soldiers)". In that case, loss of a battle need not be involved at all.

It does seem unfair to dish out this kind of treatment where it was actually poor strategy on the part of a general which was to blame for loss of a battle but no-one would get to be general in the first place without some level of demonstrated ability so I imagine such occurences were extremely rare. Some military blunders have been accentuated in the history books, as a salutary lesson to future would-be commanders. Meanwhile, the maxim that "history is written by the winners" might suggest that countless similar, but smaller-scale or less educational, embarassments have been thouroughly covered up by their respective empire's historians, along with any incidences of decimation which followed them, other than historical notes that such a practice existed.

As a punishment for individual units which routed off the field with only light casualties, whilst their companions fought on and got slaughtered all the more for lack of their support, it makes perfect sense. Where the entire army routed together and prematurely, causing the battle to be lost, it makes even more sense - for bringing the empire's entire soldiery into disrepute. The ability to psychologically affect an opponent just by the mere reputation of your army's qualities has the battle half won before it even starts. Anything which threatens that needs to be stamped out fast.

It's sobering to think that the practice of executing individuals for cowardice and desertion was still in use as recently as the first World War and there was an incidence of mass mutiny in the French army which led to randomly selected individuals being picked out, court-martialled and shot. The movie of that story features Kirk Douglas but I forget the title. I think it was a Stanley Kubrick film. Rarely shown on TV these days as it was shot in black and white.

Decimation was a particularly harsh punishment.

Every ten men would draw lots and one of them would have to die. What made this a really harsh form of punishment was that the other nine men would then carry out the punishment. If I remember rightly, the killing was done by clubbing to death. Psychologically, this was a really effective way to deal with cowardice or treason (which were the usual reasons for this punishment being used).

Every man in the legion was effected. 1 died at the hands of his 9 comrades. So, every one was punished while retaning the fighting strength
of the legions as well as sending a powerful message to the enemies of Rome that they would kill their own soldiers in order to win.

Pretty rough justice.

i've always wondered how far up the chain did that go? did that include patricians? i could see them killing grunts, and maybe centurions but i find it hard to believe that they would kill legates or other higher up officers.

Incidently, the French were still doing it during WW1. :book:

I agree that RTW ignores this aspect of managing an army and it makes no real account of attrition or logistic's. It would certanly make the game much harder if these things were modelled. I've had two units of Town Watch stuck in a small fort high in the mountains for over a hundred years and they haven't lost a man yet. ~:eek:

I could be remembering wrong but only one legion ever had the disgrace of being decimated twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

i've always wondered how far up the chain did that go? did that include patricians? i could see them killing grunts, and maybe centurions but i find it hard to believe that they would kill legates or other higher up officers.

---

Centurions and Opto's {junior to centurions} could certainly be included in a decimation. Patricians could not be executed this way, at least under the First Republic (which is where this games' time period is set}. Patricians had to be prosecuted in a senatorial court and even then the death penalty was very rarely awarded. (I think only for crimes such as Treason Against Rome).
The usual punishment for Patricians was exile but not for this sort of misdemeanor. They would usually get a hefty fine. The worst thing for a patrician in this scenario would be loss of face and status (they could sometimes lose their Patrician and First Hundred Family status.

Found this on the procedure for decimation:

After a very serious offense (e.g., mutiny or having panicked), the commander of the commander of a legion would take the decision, and an officer would go to the subunit that was to be punished.

The surviving nine men were ordered to club the man to death.

The tribune assembles the legion, and brings up those guilty of leaving the ranks, reproaches them sharply, and finally chooses by lots sometimes five, sometimes eight, sometimes twenty of the offenders, so adjusting the number thus chosen that they form as near as possible the tenth part of those guilty of cowardice. Those on whom the lot falls are bastinadoed mercilessly, the surviving nine men were then ordered to club the unlucky man to death.

The rest receive rations of barley instead of wheat and are ordered to encamp outside the camp on an unprotected spot. As therefore the danger and dread of drawing the fatal lot affects all equally, as it is uncertain on whom it will fall; and as the public disgrace of receiving barley rations falls on all alike, this practice is that best calculated both the inspire fear and to correct the mischief.

The last recorded decimation was in the year 18 BC and was inflicted on the III Augusta Legion by their new commander Lucious Apronius as punsihment for allowing one of its subunits to be beseiged and annihilated by the Musulamii near the river Pagyda during the African campaign against Tacfarinas.

I must admit I find this particular example grossly unjust. Even assuming that the subunit in question was negligent in some way which led to its destruction then those responsible are already dead and I see no logic in punishing others who were not even present. Alternatively, if the fate of the subunit was not of its own doing but down to a lapse of duty on the part of their brothers in arms then it sounds like a lapse of command initiative rather than courage and if anything it should have been the officers that got punished rather than the men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by troymclure

I think Crassus was famous for doing it to the legions he received to fight spartacus. The legions in question had actually broken a couple of times when facing spartacus's armies and crassus decimated them as one of his first orders of buisness when he took charge.

---

Speaking of Spartacus, he had a movie on the history channel yesterday so thats the only reason I understand about Crassus... good film by the way, just too many commercials about alexander the great

didn't the French do something like this (not 1 in 10 of course) during WW1 when a section of the front mutinied? The point being its not that bizarre or ancient. I'd prefer to leave this out of RTW though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

I only found out this thing about decimation meaning a Roman military punishment relatively recently, from a TV doumentary of all places. I'd long had it in my head that it meant destruction of an army down to one tenth of its original size but, checking my dictionary, just now, that is listed as definition number 2 and has the comment "disapproved of by some speakers", indicating that it's considered a misuse of the word.

Definition number 1 is as stated previously in this thread but it says that it was "killing every tenth man (of eg mutinous soldiers)". In that case, loss of a battle need not be involved at all.

It does seem unfair to dish out this kind of treatment where it was actually poor strategy on the part of a general which was to blame for loss of a battle but no-one would get to be general in the first place without some level of demonstrated ability so I imagine such occurences were extremely rare. Some military blunders have been accentuated in the history books, as a salutary lesson to future would-be commanders. Meanwhile, the maxim that "history is written by the winners" might suggest that countless similar, but smaller-scale or less educational, embarassments have been thouroughly covered up by their respective empire's historians, along with any incidences of decimation which followed them, other than historical notes that such a practice existed.

As a punishment for individual units which routed off the field with only light casualties, whilst their companions fought on and got slaughtered all the more for lack of their support, it makes perfect sense. Where the entire army routed together and prematurely, causing the battle to be lost, it makes even more sense - for bringing the empire's entire soldiery into disrepute. The ability to psychologically affect an opponent just by the mere reputation of your army's qualities has the battle half won before it even starts. Anything which threatens that needs to be stamped out fast.

It's sobering to think that the practice of executing individuals for cowardice and desertion was still in use as recently as the first World War and there was an incidence of mass mutiny in the French army which led to randomly selected individuals being picked out, court-martialled and shot. The movie of that story features Kirk Douglas but I forget the title. I think it was a Stanley Kubrick film. Rarely shown on TV these days as it was shot in black and white.

---

Paths of Glory
1957
Kirk Douglass - Col. Dax
Stanley Kubrick - director