misuse of "decimated"

[ForresterModern]

Decimated originated from the latin for use way back in the Roman legions, who absorbed into their ranks the crestfallen soldiers of their conquered regions. Understandably this often made for some unruly, less than optimally loyal soldiers in the ranks. As punishment for times of general disobedience (refusing to attack when ordered to, for instance) they would be lined up and "decimated"--counted off by ten and then every tenth man would be punished by their Roman leaders, and if that punishment was harsh, such as death, their ranks would be "decimated" (diminished by one tenth or 10%) by their own disciplinary measures. Hence the origin of the use of the word relating to military and battle terminology was actually non-battle related, rather self inflicted on a grand scale.

The term (a 10% reduction) has been exaggerated through the centuries, mostly in the last one or two, to come to mean something entirely different---that of near total annihilation or obliteration---probably because those using the term thought it sounded more profound than those other terms, and because they may not have been able to spell those more appropriate terms as well. Annihilation is a far more ominous degree and extent of loss, and near total would be devastating. Obliteration is, well, essentially complete destruction, the ultimate total loss. Either would be far worse in battle than simply being "decimated" (reduced by 10%), which by more modern warfare standards (at least up until the year 2000 or so) would not be seen as necessarily an exceptional loss, rather more expected and acceptable "casualties of war" in the era of hand to hand or close quarters warfare (where opponents could "see the whites of their eyes" before engaging, not the unmanned drone strike, massive air armaments delivered from 10,000 feet, cruise missile, or even artillery dominated more distant types of engagements seen in latter half of the last century).