Tenth – the cruelest punishment of the Roman army

When we say present that the flu has "decimated" the office or that the drought has "decimated" the crop, we mean simply large havoc. fewer people remember that under this word there is simply a very specific, cool arithmetic: decem - Ten. 10 meant virtually killing all tenth. Not much, not "very many." precisely 1 in ten, chosen by fate, bruised by nine, which destiny spared.

It was decimatio – the punishment that the Roman army was punishing its own soldiers for cowardice, rebellion or escape from the battlefield. It sounds like the invention of a madman, and it was a cold-thought tool of discipline: an institution, a procedure, almost a bureaucracy of horror. And – most importantly for our cycle – this punishment is described in sources in black and white. He's not a myth. The story is that the Romans decimated their legions over and over again.

In this episode we strip 1 of the most bloody Roman institutions into part one. We are looking at precisely the procedure, who described it, who resurrected it after centuries of forgetting – and why its rarity was part of the project. The usual method: we take the source, we look at who wrote it and when, and we ask what he truly could see.

It's part of our cycle. History of Rome: Facts vs Myths. This time we come down from the forum and from the stands of the amphitheatre consecutive to the legion camp – where the courage of the enemy decided not to live and die, but the pebble drawn from the helmet.

Ten, Fate, and Sticks: How It truly Worked

Let's start with the mechanics, due to the fact that it's the 1 with the cruel elegance of the idea. erstwhile a division – a cohort or a smaller unit – covered itself with disgraceful cowardice or escaping, the commander administered a collective punishment. The guilty were placed in line and divided into groups of ten. In all ten, lots were drawn. The man he fell on was dying. The remaining 9 were not spectators—they executed the sentence, killing the chosen 1 with sticks and stones.

This is the intellectual core of the punishment. It wasn't just that he died all tenth time. The point was that he was murdered by comrades of arms—the same people with whom he shared a tent, bread and fear. And the destiny was blind: not the 1 who was most guilty, but the 1 who was not fortunate, perished. Horror decimatio She just came from this uncertainty spilled on everyone. Everyone in the line knew that it could have been him—and that if it had fallen on the neighbor, he would gotta rise his hand himself.

That was not the end of the punishment. Those who survived the draw were inactive humiliated: alternatively of wheat, they were given the right barley—the grain that was fed to the animals—and they had to pitch tents outside the camp wall, without protecting fortifications, exposed to the enemy and shame. The signal was clear: you stopped being full soldiers of Rome.

Worth separating decimatio from a related punishment with which he is confused. Fustuary (from fustis – the baton) afraid the unit: the soldier who stole, took a false oath or left the station. The Tribune touched him with a baton, after which the remainder of the camp beat the guilty with sticks and stones. It was an individual punishment for a circumstantial offense. Decimatio and was a collective punishment for the shame of the full branch – and so it reached for fate. erstwhile the group was guilty, and it was impossible to identify the individual guilty, Rome punished everyone, killing part.

Polybius, or how do we even know?

The most complete early description of both penalties is due to Polybius, a Greek historian from the second century B.C.E. He's a very good witness. Polibius spent many years in Rome as a hostage, revolved among the Roman elite and watched closely the institutions of the republic – including military ones. In his sixth book Acts He left us any kind of coverage of the mechanics of the Roman army: what the camp looked like, how it was promoted, how it was rewarded and how it was punished.

This is what Polibius describes the draw, the batons and the barley. And what is crucial is that it does this not as a chronicle of 1 scandal, but as a description of the system. For him. decimatio was not an excess of the cruel, but an component of the iron discipline (latz. discipline) which made Roman legions so dangerous. The Greek viewed it with a mixture of admiration and horror: here is simply a device that can force a man to fear his own commander more than the enemy. And a soldier who is more afraid of escaping than fighting doesn't run away.

For historian Polibius, he is the origin of first class: he writes close to the era he describes, has access to Roman informants and has no interest in coloring. So erstwhile we say "punishment existed and looked something like this" we trust primarily on it. It is simply a uncommon comfort in our cycle, where we usually deal with gossipers like Swetonius. The ground here is hard.

Crassus resurrects terror: Spartacus, 71 B.C.E.

The most celebrated decimation in past occurred at the end of the war with Spartacus. Marek Licinius Crassus, the richest man of Rome and the future triumvir, was commanded in a war against the uprising of slaves that humiliated the republic since 73 BC. erstwhile part of his army broke in clashes and ran distant from gladiators, Crassus reached for punishment, which – as the sources emphasize – had long been out of use. He resurrected decimatioto reconstruct the army's fear of themselves.

And this is where it gets interestingly sourced, due to the fact that the 2 main authors are giving a very different scale. Plutarch In Crassus' live life, he describes the exact thing: the commander selected 500 soldiers who showed the top cowardice, divided them into 50 tens and ordered them to kill 1 of each group – a full of 50 men. Appian In Civil wars He speaks of the decimation of the full broken ward and the number reaching as many as 4,000 killed. The difference is colossal: 50 versus 4 thousand.

Which one's right? Most historians present are inclined towards Plutarch. 4 1000 killed soldiers are a number that is hard to believe – logistically, militarily, and humanly. An army that loses an full legion at the same time from its own leader just before the decisive campaign, alternatively than getting stronger, but falling apart. Plutarch's version – respective twelve lost as a brutal but limited signal – better fits the logic of the punishment, whose goal was fear, not destruction. Anyway, just the fact that Crassus had This punishment to resurrect is the best proof of how much she's out of use.

Effect? Chronicles say it worked. Crassus' soldiers, placed between Spartacus and their own commander, began to fear the another more – and shortly afterwards they broke the uprising. The horror aimed inwards translated into effectiveness outwards. Cynical, but in Roman count: profitable.

How frequently really? seldom – and that was the point

This is where we get to the bottom of the myth. In a popular image, the Roman legion is simply a device in which they decimate someone, and the chief reaches for destiny as regular as the seal. Well, no. Decimatio she was a shock – and she acted just due to the fact that she was an exception. A punishment besides severe, utilized besides often, stops scaring and begins to rebel. The Romans understood it perfectly.

The strongest proof of the rarity of punishment is himself Tacith. In 20 C.E. the proconsul of Africa Lucius Apronius decimated the 3rd Legion cohort Augusta For escaping Takfarinas, the historian calls this punishment straight rarum ea aetate – ‘rare in those times’, reaching for the customized of the old era. erstwhile the best Roman historian, writing about a contemporary event himself, points out that it is uncommon and archaic, we have the best possible firsthand testimony: decimation was not a norm, but a sensation.

The remainder of the documented cases only confirm this due to the fact that there are fewer of them and they are generations apart. The earliest mentions go back to the beginning of the republic – Livius records decimations already in the 5th century BC, in wars with Wolskami. Marek Antony was to scope for this punishment after defeat in the run against the Parties (this is described by Plutarch in Antony's life). Later mentions are uncommon and dispersed to Diocletian times. A twelve cases spread over 7 centuries – this is not routine. It's a backup hammer, pulled out erstwhile all fewer generations, just to keep it from going everyday.

And here's a paradox that's easy to miss. What He Does decimatio so spectacular in the communicative – its cruelty – made it in practice kept in reserve. Literature, movie and imagination like the version in which the Roman army constantly melts in its own blood. The reality was duller and smarter: a leader who could decimate, but almost never did, ruled the threat itself.

Second death of the word: from punishment to metaphor

The most interesting destiny was not the punishment, but the name. Latin decimare‘take all tenth’ meant originally this peculiar military slaughter of 1 in ten. But words live their own lives, and this is just a wonderful journey. English decimate Even in the 17th century, it was utilized in the sense of taxation – "take down the tenth", taxation of 1 tenth. Around the same time, since the 1960s, it began to mean “to destruct a large, unspecified part of something”.

And the looser version won. Today, erstwhile we say "epidemia decimated the population", no 1 is counting whether precisely all tenth was killed – it is simply a immense desolation, even half of it. This makes language Purists despair: ‘decimal’ should mean ‘kill 1 in ten’, not ‘almost all’! But language seldom listens to pedants. The precise, method word of the Roman military regulations became a vague metaphor for defeat. Polish “decimal” went the same way.

There's any justice in that. The punishment, which all the force took from cool precision – precisely all tenth, not 1 more – in the language it blurted into inaccuracy. The Romans, for whom the number was the essence of punishment, would most likely spin their heads. But it was this semantic journey that made the word last 2 1000 years, although the institution itself died. present decimatio He already lives only in grammar – as a verb whose actual blood lineage barely anyone remembers.

Verdict of sources

Frequently Asked Questions

What precisely was Roman decimatio?

It's a collective punishment applied in the Roman army for cowardice, rebellion or flight from the battlefield. The guilty squad was divided into groups of ten, each drawing lots, and the chosen 1 was killed with sticks and stones by his own comrades of arms. Those who survived were given the humiliating right of barley alternatively of wheat and had to camp outside the embankment. The Greek historian Polibius described this in his sixth book Acts.

Did decimation truly exist, or was it a legend?

It truly existed and is well documented – it is 1 of the more reliable facts in our full cycle. They are described by top sources: Polibius gives the procedure, Plutarch and Appian recount the celebrated decimation in Crassus, and Tacitus records the case of 20 C.E. The story is not the specified existence of punishment, but the belief that it was utilized frequently and routinely.

Did Crassus decimate his soldiers during the war with Spartacus?

Yes, and it was he who resurrected this punishment after a long time erstwhile it was out of use. It's just a scale. Plutarch reports 50 people have been executed (500 cowards divided into 50 tens), Appian even talks about 4,000 dead. Historians consider Plutarch's version to be much more credible – the massacre of the full legion just before the decisive run would have no military sense.

How frequently did the Romans usage decimation?

Very rare. We know only a twelve documented cases spread over 7 centuries, from the 5th century B.C.E. to Diocletian times. Tacitus himself, describing the punishment of 20 C.E., calls it “rare in those days.” Rareness was not an accident – a punishment besides severe, utilized besides often, would cease to scare. The Romans kept it in reserve just so it wouldn't be common.

Why does “decimal” mean something else today?

Because the word changed in time. Latin decimare (from decem"ten" virtually meant "kill all tenth." Already in the 17th century English decimate However, it began to be utilized in the sense of "destroying a large part of something," without exact counting. This looser meaning has dispelled the first – and so present we say that something "decimated" the population, with immense losses in mind, not precisely a tenth.