That’s one of the reasons there is some doubt about the historicity of decimation in the Roman Republic. It sounds very much like a “golden age” myth: “back in the days of the Republic when Romans were hard and disciplined they didn’t think twice about beating their comrades to death when ordered to do so, nowadays Romans are so soft and spoiled if you tried that they’d mutiny and kill you”
Several French generals in WWI were keen to revive the practice. It quickly became apparent that it was easier said than done. After the 1917 mutiny they were actually on track to outdo the Romans, handing down 550 death sentences out of 3,400 courts martial, but for morale’s sake all but about 25 were commuted.
I first heard that decades ago.
It gets the point across: “Screw up like he did, and this might happen to you.”
Why? Do you also doubt stories where firing squads were selected from soldiers that served with the condemned man?
What do you consider the reciprocal to be?
- Nine out of ten are killed, and one survives?
- Number of soldiers increase by 10%?
Thank you for posting “fewer than” rather than “less than.”
Sigh. Either “less than” or “fewer than” is correct.
Completely different dynamic, there. When one specific soldier is sentenced to death, it’s for something that specific soldier did, not any of the executioners, and the sorts of things that will get a soldier sentenced to death are likely to be things that endangered their own squadmates. Given a choice between “kill the screw-up who almost got us all killed, or kill the officer who ordered that screw-up killed”, soldiers are likely to choose the former.
With decimation, though, the ones to be killed are chosen randomly, for the misdeeds of the whole unit, so whatever it was that the soldiers did, the others don’t particularly disapprove of. And a random choice means you’re likely to pick some of the guys that everyone else gets along with and likes hanging out with. Now, the choice is “kill all of those guys who just did the same things I did, or kill the officer”, and the choice is very different.
I only used “fewer than” to keep the peasants pendants quiet. In this case, it scans better as “less than 40 days”, because it’s referring to a 40-day time period, and your brain fills that in for you.
Well played
Given the word’s specific definition, wouldn’t sticking to it cause it to fall out of use almost entirely? Is it a greater tragedy to misuse it or not use it at all?
Arrgg! Fucking autocorrect.
I disagree.
The point is that the whole unit is held guilty of cowardice, and the whole unit is severely punished. One out of ten is punished with death, and the other nine are punished by being forced to kill their buddy.
Don’t think it happened? Ever seen Paths Of Glory, or read about the real event that inspired it?
In the 2025 movie Triumph of the Heart, something similar to this happens, and it’s at least close to a real event. The prisoners at Auschwitz were told that they shouldn’t tolerate any of their fellow prisoners escaping from from the prison. If one did, ten of the prisoners would be chosen at random and put into an underground bunker. There they would receive no food or water and allowed to die from starvation and dehydration. The movie is about a real Catholic priest named Maximilian Kolbe. He had been imprisoned in Auschwitz because he had helped Jews escape from the Nazis. When a prisoner escaped, he volunteered to take the place of one of the ten prisoners selected and died along with the other nine prisoners.
The way I learned it, if you can count them it’s fewer. Less sand, fewer diamonds.
Nope. With uncountable nouns only less is correct. You can’t have fewer sand. With countable nouns, either one is acceptable. You can have less diamonds, or fewer diamonds. Both are correct and the two are interchangeable and identical in meaning.
wasn’t that similar to the scene from movie “Paths of Glory” where 3 soldiers were arbitrarily selected for execution?
This cite specifically disallows “less” for countable nouns except for time, money, distance, or percentages. Do you have one that says otherwise?
This guy seems to be something of an expert. He takes on 6 wrong grammar rules including less/fewer and also splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition.
Though IMO its fine when it’s used to mean “around 1-in-10 are killed”. It’s just that it’s come to mean "a unit being largely wiped out’ so actually closer to “only 1-in-10 survive” which is the opposite of what it’s meant to mean (i.e. losing 1-in-10 does not stop a unit existing as a fighting force, that’s the point of the punishment, losing 9-in-10 does).
Though TBH it was probably wrong to say that it bugs me, I notice that and don’t agree but it doesn’t actually bug me per se. What really bugs me (and I have heard on youtube) is when the narrator is describing a unit being mainly wiped out and saying “literally decimated”. Grrrr 