Was Emperor Claudius II right?

[Argeus the Paladin]

The same emperor who allegedly issued an order banning men from getting married before serving their terms in the Legion. St. Valentine was rumored to have defied this law and thus got executed. The whole myth may or may not be ahistorical, but the fact remains that many believes that Emperor Claudius was a demon to have issued such a law.

I don't think so, personally. After I have played the Total War series, and seeing the effect of morale and routing to the victory and defeat of a battle, such feelign grew stronger.

Assume that in a particular pitched battle between Rome and <insert generic barbarian horde here> and men are dying left and right.

Scenario 1: A man suddenly thought of his wife and children and thought it would be pointless for him to die and leaving them alone, and promptly threw down his arms and armor and ran back to the line of safety. He was followed by his friend who was disheartened by this desertion, and his friend, and his friend... until the entire army turns tail and rout.

Rome's armies lay defeated, and the barbarians triumphed.

Scenario 2: The army, unmarried young men in theit prime, has nothing else to worry about other than killing every last one of their enemies, and pushed the barbarian army back until they broke. The legions give chase and captured their baggage train and tons of slaves.

Rome is saved and enriched by the victory.

Of course the hypotheses are... rigged for the sake of the comparison. But I do believe that falling in love does reduce the combat efficiency of a soldier compared one whose mindset goes along the lines of "more prey for the kill".

Thoughts?

[Blarni]

I see your points on both - but I think there is another angle, history is full of examples of where people defending their homes and families have defeated larger, more professional forces. Defending your own from the exceptionally brutal attentions of battle-shocked soldiers on the rampage after a victory is good motivation.

Of course the Romans would never have brought their women and kids actually on campaign, as other armies have done (at the expense of speed) - but if your hypothetical Roman army were the only thing standing between the barbarian horde and their hometown/fortress their concern for their dependents may well be a plus.

[Gestalt]

I can't even remember the name of the Roman documentary(so don't ask me for source) I watched,but it stated that marriage was banned because the Roman soldiers suffered horrible casualties in a certain battle after they fell out of rank and went into disorder fighting to save their wives and children whom the enemy were targeting..It even stated that the Roman Emperor noticed that the soldiers fought harder when deprived of sex-lol.Ironic though because there were prostitutes and captured women from the spoils of war which as a fact traveled with the Roman army later on.

[cenkiss]

Mongols had their families wherever they went.That did not stop them from being successful.

[Gestalt]

True,but those were the near invincible Mongols-lol I think I also recall from the documentary that the Roman soldiers had also brought the children from these prostitutes and captured women along with them on campaigns.So that law banning marriage really bcame unnecessary later on since the women basically were wives with out a title anyways.They obviously found a way to get around that situation,and it was just a temporary measure because which obviously became very relaxed later on.I thing the soldiers would have outright revolted after too being too long without sex-lol

[Salem1]

I think your view holds credit now that you've mentioned it, but the first thing I thought of when I read the description before I saw your example was that a family losing its father does a lot more damage than an unmarried son dying. First of all there will be the whole sorrow thing which will probably become worse, and that's the first thing I thought of - then there would be a family without a father and no one should have to live under a step-father.

[Exarch]

seems reasonable, but ur forgetting the youths who've been heartbroken and now have nothing left to lose and fight like lions

[Claudius Gothicus]

The banning was mostly nominal, soldiers could still get some pussy you know

[hellheaven1987]

The actual reason for banning marriage was not how it would affect army morale (in fact, experience of 18th Century warfare suggests camp followers might be a good thing at all, since it gave soldiers an extract helper to carry equipments and provide better individual care, hence provided healthier soldiers in the end), but rather its financial burden to support those families which lost their main financial source. It also caused logistical problem when legions were deployed in difficult regions, and slowed down the marching speed. Still, early Roman Legions performed well even with all those unofficial companions followed them (but since those followers were "unofficial", the officers could simply deny any right to them when necessaried), so I don't really see the problem overall. Later on, however, it would cause major handicap for late Roman Legions, even went extreme case such as Julian the Apostate's rebellion in Gaul.

[Argeus the Paladin]

Wait.

Then what's the substance in the St. Valentine popular legend?

[hellheaven1987]

Then what's the substance in the St. Valentine popular legend?

There are no firm source suggests who St Valentine actually was. The earliest detailed source, which was Nuremberg Chronicle, 15th Century, suggested St Valentine was executed because he was caught marrying Christian couple - a serious crime since Claudius II was persecuted Christians at Rome. Hence, St Valentine was executed because he assisted Christians.

[Argeus the Paladin]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Note to self: St. Valentine was executed for being a Christianity promoter rather than being a love promoter. Whether or not that makes the Roman emperor less of a monster is entirely arguable.

[hellheaven1987]

Note to self: St. Valentine was executed for being a Christianity promoter rather than being a love promoter. Whether or not that makes the Roman emperor less of a monster is entirely arguable.

Well, that is off topic of course. Either way, it seems the late Roman Legions generally settled their family in permanunt location instead let them be camp followers - quite an interesting development which might because late Roman Legions generally operated in defensive style, hence their operations generally were not necessaried to go out of their territories of respond and enable the legionnaries to settle down more permanuntly.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Wasn't he executed for marrying soldier's when it was clearly forbidden?

[hellheaven1987]

Wasn't he executed for marrying soldier's when it was clearly forbidden?

No. Rome actually had no clear information about this St Valentine, hence officially it was not clear who this dude was and what his past deed was (and no official information about why he was a saint).

Either way, a bit off topic but some modern military organizations today still has rule that restrict its members to marry. For example, to join French Foreign Legion the recruits have to be unmarried, and most veterans suggest it is even better to say you have no girlfriend, since Legion is very sensitive about this issue and have a girlfriend would mostly result dismissing during recruit selection. After a recruit is accepted, he cannot marry during his first contract, which means his first five years term. He can, however, marry after first contract, but there are some traditional rule within Legion that demand its members to stay in Legion during specified event, for example, like only allow to spend Christmass eve within Legion.

[ray243]

Wasn't he executed for marrying soldier's when it was clearly forbidden?

For all we know, he could be a fictional character invented by people much later. Given that the story doesn't make much sense ( considering that a married person could still be allowed to be in the army), it seems that the person spreading those stories doesn't have a clear idea about the Roman army during the third century.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I dont know how much of it you can really believe, the church made up a lot of lies or exaggerations to explain their rise.

[Sphere]

Either way, a bit off topic but some modern military organizations today still has rule that restrict its members to marry. For example, to join French Foreign Legion the recruits have to be unmarried, and most veterans suggest it is even better to say you have no girlfriend, since Legion is very sensitive about this issue and have a girlfriend would mostly result dismissing during recruit selection

This French policy though has different motivations. They do it so the Legionnaires can be more expendable without causing a media fuss. I little ceremony and grave in Corisca is a lot different than a flag draped coffin, and crying wife/kids in the streets of Paris.