Were Roman soldiers who lost limbs in battle considered heroes or outcasts in Roman society?

by Knightmare25

Today we consider those who sacrificed their body for a cause in battle to be heroes. Was this the same in Roman society?

BruceWareAllen

Livy writes about Mucius Scaevola, a young lad who snuck into the enemy camp of Lars Porsena with the intention of assassinating this Etruscan king. He got the wrong guy and was about to be tortured when he calmly thrust his right hand into the burning coals, permanently crippling himself just to make the point toe LP that Romans care nothing about bodily damage, and that although he, MS, had failed to assassinate the invader, there were plenty of other Romans just like him waiting to trying their hand. Peace broke out soon after that. Rome gave MS as much land has he could plow in a the space of a single day (tough, with that hand) as well as a statue.

This was, of course, one of those hail the hero stories to inspire later Roman youth, but who can say that there wasn't a grain of truth to it?

In more historical times, the empire had special colonies for wounded veterans and tax breaks as well. Of course emperor's wanted soldiers who wanted a fair shake; what the man in street felt is a little more open to question. Blithe indifference if you didn't know anyone serving, I would imagine, respect if you did.

In any event, the book you want is Richard Gabriel's Man and Wound in the Ancient World: A Hisotry fo Military Medicine from Sumer to the Fall of Constantinople