[HN Gopher] Pre-Modern Battlefields (2015) ___________________________________________________________________ Pre-Modern Battlefields (2015) Author : Tomte Score : 116 points Date : 2022-06-29 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (scholars-stage.org) (TXT) w3m dump (scholars-stage.org) | ilovecurl wrote: | 'Why was cold steel a "unique terror" for troops in combat?' The | most terrifying part of Saving Private Ryan is private Mellish's | death after hand to hand combat with a knife. | gigaflop wrote: | I haven't seen that movie in a while, but the gist of that | scene is burned into my brain. The grossest death of the movie, | IMO, and it isn't even that gory. | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | Well, modern and post-modern are pretty terrifying too. | waynesonfire wrote: | I really like this introduction of the terror aspect. It really | is key. Another place I recognize this concept being utilized is | by Jordan Peterson. One of the foundational pillars to his | analysis of human psychology is that we are surrounded by | malevolence and he uses that in his analysis to better understand | human behavior. It certainly makes for compelling arguments | because that foundation is so true. And, it seems to be missing | from his critics. | lofatdairy wrote: | There's a pretty telling anecdote in Suetonius's life of Augustus | where "[Augustus] sold a Roman knight and his property at public | auction, because he had cut off the thumbs of two young sons, to | make them unfit for military service" (24). In fact, this was | apparently not uncommon, with several more references to similar | self-inflicted injuries to avoid service popping up in various | texts. I think there were also direct reforms put in place that | specified that men without fingers could still be deemed fit for | service (I think this might have been the late imperial period | but unfortunately the precise source was found in a library book | that I don't have access to at the moment). | | While war is obviously still horrific, I think it's a bit easier | to forget that when discussing history when we don't have | particularly realistic images to base our imaginations. That even | the Romans, at the height of its power, feared sending their sons | to war, kinda counters the notion that conquest was this | glorious, honorable thing that built an empire and made men like | Caesar into the immortal gods we remember. | sandworm101 wrote: | War, battlefields and military service are three very different | things. Up until the Korean war, soldiers were much more likely | to die from disease than combat. Living in unsanitary war camps | was more likely to kill you than the enemy. Even peacetime | military service would have, in Roman times, involved marching | all over the place working on fortifications and roads. Roman | soldiers got sick in camp and were injured in what we would | today call industrial accidents. Even simple travel, especially | if by ship, was often lethal. So when we read of a parent not | wanting to send their son to the army, do not think that it is | a fear of the battlefield. That was a secondary concern to all | manner of non-combat dangers. | nescioquid wrote: | Great point. The picture you paint seems generally like the | ancient world. In Rome, malaria, unsanitary apartment | buildings burning down, highway men if you travel by road, | pirates if by sea, everyone was sick (I vaguely recall Cicero | mentioning another senator suffering from diarrhea soiling | himself in public) and the bread you ate wore down your | teeth. Do you happen to know if the Romans thought that these | things were especially worse on campaign (wouldn't doubt it | at all)? | sandworm101 wrote: | A soldier on the move would probably have been healthier | than a slave in the heart of a Roman city. But deaths | associated with day-to-day life are very different than | deaths far away on campaign. Remember that it would be many | months, possibly years, before a family knew whether their | son had survived his military service. And a good number of | sons that did survive never actually came home, instead | settling in some far away place or were stuck without money | enough to make the return trip. | duxup wrote: | People didn't want to go to war like anyone else I suspect. | | Although it could be a good choice for some Romans. My | understanding was the legions were one of the few paths to | "move up" the social order. The rewards / rights of a solider | could be pretty big if you retired and odds were pretty good | you would retire. As opposed to being poor and remaining poor | ... maybe an appealing choice. | lkrubner wrote: | In her book SPQR, the historian Mary Beard emphasizes that the | Roman Empire was unable to conquer anything. The Roman Republic | conquered the Mediterranean world, and then the Roman Empire | failed at everything: | | https://www.amazon.com/Spqr-History-Ancient-Mary-Beard/dp/18... | | The only major, lasting conquest made by the Roman Empire was | the conquest of Britain, under the Emperor Claudius. But for | the most part, from the moment it was created, the Roman Empire | was in a defensive crouch, trying to defend what the Roman | Republic had built. The Republic had a culture that very much | treated war as a glorious thing, and mobilized the public for | total war, over and over again. The Roman Empire was very | different, fighting became professionalized, and it became | defensive. | ceeplusplus wrote: | > The only major, lasting conquest made by the Roman Empire | was the conquest of Britain | | If you consider Augustus to be the beginning of the Empire, | then there were many lasting conquests under the Empire | (parts of Hispania, Pannonia, Africa, etc). But even if you | don't, the Empire conquered and held Dacia for over 150 years | and held many parts of Armenia for long periods of time. | | > mobilized the public for total war, over and over again | | I'm not sure I would consider anything later than the Punic | Wars to be a state of total war. At no point was Rome or | Italy actually threatened in the Mithridatic Wars, Caesar's | conquest of Gaul, etc. Slaves were not mobilized and property | not confiscated for the state. The only times total war | actually happened in the late Republic-early Empire - the | period of Rome's greatest territorial gains - was during | existential invading threats like the Cimbri or the Pannonian | revolt. None of these were a result of Rome losing a battle | in a war of aggression. | | One of the reasons Christianity is considered a reason for | why the Empire fell is absolutely the culture of war and | nationalism that pagan Rome had though. | inglor_cz wrote: | "One of the reasons Christianity is considered a reason for | why the Empire fell is absolutely the culture of war and | nationalism that pagan Rome had though." | | Really? The Eastern empire (Byzantium) was Christian | through and through, and yet rather warlike and survived | for 1000 more years. | | Even in the declining Western empire of the fifth century, | there was quite a lot of fight left, with important | military leaders such as Stilicho and Majorian. The problem | was often the barely checked aggression _within_ the | Christian elites themselves. Both Stilicho and Majorian | were killed by their internal Roman adversaries, not by an | external enemy. | ceeplusplus wrote: | Stilicho and Majorian's armies were composed of at least | a plurality of Germanic troops recruited from tribes that | were stopped in their migrations by Rome. The Eastern | Empire (and the Empire as a whole starting around | Diocletian) had to force soldiers' children to serve | because they had a shortage of willing recruits. All the | evidence (conscription, hereditary service, large-scale | incorporation of barbarians into the legions) points to | manpower shortages due to the unwillingness of native | Romans to serve. Republican Rome put barbarians into | auxiliary units, not the legions, because they had no | need for more men in the legions. | | Even the Battle of Adrianople in 378 and Germanic | incursions into Italy in the early 5th century did not | force Rome into total mobilization of the population like | when Hannibal invaded Italy. That points to a general | unwillingness to defend the Roman state in the general | population. Consider that Rome was able to repeatedly | raise new, massive armies when Hannibal inflicted | defeats, but the Eastern empire was unable to raise even | a token force to combat the Goths after Adrianople. | | There may have been elites with fight left in them, but | the average citizen did not share the attitude of those | of Republican Rome. | april_22 wrote: | While they did fail when it comes to conquering, it should | still not be understated how impressive the romans where in | so many other areas. Their road network and how they built it | is nothing but fascinating and it's always amazing seeing the | roads in real life. | | https://you.com/search?q=roman+roads https://www.reddit.com/r | /MapPorn/comments/u5wlwh/mapped_roma... | | Not to forget many other areas like architecture or arts. | https://you.com/search?q=roman+architecture | starwind wrote: | The Romans were also up against some adversaries who fought | desperately to not be Roman. Somewhat off topic, but I'll | bring it up anyway, it must have been better to have lived in | a Gallic or Germanic or Iberian tribe than to have lived as a | Roman ~citizen~ _person_ if they were willing to die than | submit. I'm sure honor had something to do with it, but the | general trend seen in the archaeological record in the Middle | East and North America is that people got shorter and had | more teeth problems as they settle down into civilization | than when they were hunter /gatherers or lived in settled | communities for no more than a few years before hitting the | proverbial road again. I'm sure the same thing applies in | Europe during the Roman age. | cheriot wrote: | Where Gallic, Germanic, and Iberian tribes actually | hunter/gatherers? By that time I thought Europe and the | Mediterranean were dominated by farming cultures. | starwind wrote: | They were farming some crops but wouldn't have been as | dependent on them as Romans would have been and would | have had a lot more variety including meat in their diets | gotorazor wrote: | Caesar in his Bellum Gallicum -- the gauls had cities | (that Caesar's army had to build siege engines to take) | and kings. The regions had millions of people living | there. In one tribe alone (Atuatici), Caesar, to punish | them sold 53,000 people from a single tribe into slavery. | This isn't the entire population, just what he could | round up in a single town. | | I don't think small tribes of wandering hunters with | small farming plots can sustain that many people. Caesar | ran around and laid sieges to these things regularly | during the Gaullic Wars. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum | Tuna-Fish wrote: | The good farmland was farmed, but this left a lot of | hillcountry which was kind of marginal for that purpose. | mellavora wrote: | You might want to read the book | | The Art of Not Being Governed | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Govern | ed | | which discusses in some detail the advantages of living | in "marginally" farmable hillcountry. | usrusr wrote: | The take-home impression I got from reading through those | two Cesar wars is that the legions were almost as | dependent on local grain available to steal (ready to | take in granary, or just ready to harvest, doesn't really | matter) as trains are dependent on rails. I assume that | except for bumping into an adequate rival in the east, | they just gobbled up the entire "wheatosphere", quickly | running out of steam (and, with a few notable exceptions, | out of motivation) whatever they ran into hunter/gatherer | economies. | Someone wrote: | But if there's lots of grain to steal, doesn't that | indicate they're not in hunter/gatherer territory? | usrusr wrote: | That's what I meant: I take it as a given that if they | were successfully invaded, they must have left the | hunter/gatherer state behind, likely by a considerable | margin. | Someone wrote: | Sorry, misread your comment | xyzzyz wrote: | Central and Western Europe have been farmed for thousands | of years by that point. Farming in Southern France/Iberia | was already well established around 7000 years BP (before | present). By the time of Romans, the hunter-gatherer's | lifestyle was wholly displaced from the area, with only | minuscule fraction of resident population engaging in it, | at best. | | See e.g. First Farmers of Europe, | https://www.amazon.com/First-Farmers-Europe-Evolutionary- | Per... | dragonwriter wrote: | > Somewhat off topic, but I'll bring it up anyway, it must | have been better to have lived in a Gallic or Germanic or | Iberian tribe than to have lived as a Roman citizen if they | were willing to die than submit. | | Peoples conquered by Rome did not become Roman citizens | with the rights and privileges associated with that, | generally. | | In the graded levels of rights in Roman law, depending on | whether they were just conquered or had treaty status, they | were two or three steps _below_ citizens of Rome. | starwind wrote: | Good call. I mean "citizen" in the general sense like | "person who lives under Rome" but wasn't thinking that | "citizen" had a very specific meaning in the Roman | context. I edited my answer | gotorazor wrote: | The reason these tribes usually resist isn't because the | Roman lifestyle is bad, it's because the Romans ran the | biggest slaving empire in the world. Those slaves that | does everything in Rome, they get them from waging war. | So strictly-speaking, there is a change that they won't | even get to be a "person" if they submit to Rome, they | would become a slave. So would their wives and children. | | If anything, a lot of people want to be Roman citizens | _after_ they have tried it. There is a whole war in Italy | called the "Social War" over extending formal, normal | citizenship to Roman allies. | acchow wrote: | > The Republic had a culture that very much treated war as a | glorious thing, and mobilized the public for total war, over | and over again. | | This is contrary to the modern world where democratic | countries are much less willing to go to war | concordDance wrote: | It certainly feels like the US has been in more wars in the | last 100 years than any 100 years of Roman history. | elmomle wrote: | It's actually surprisingly close. According to https://en | .wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_wars_and_battles, there | were 21 Roman wars in the 2nd Century BC. US count (https | ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni.. | .) for the 20th century AD is 31, but you also have to | factor in the fact that the whole world is much more | connected, and that the Roman war-and-intervention count | was almost certainly limited by communication and | transportation abilities of the time. In the context of | the ancient world, 21 wars by one state in one century | seems like an enormous number. The Achaemenid Persian | empire, which existed a few centuries prior and was very | expansionist for its time, averaged perhaps 6-8 wars per | century, depending on how you quantify wars (https://en.w | ikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Iran). | starwind wrote: | And also rely on a lot less infantry so casualties are | lower. Even with as brutal as Russia-Ukraine is, the total | number of military men killed is comparable to a single | decent-sized WWII battle | engineer_22 wrote: | My experience has been to the contrary. | jbandela1 wrote: | > The Republic had a culture that very much treated war as a | glorious thing, and mobilized the public for total war, over | and over again. | | I think there are two big differences. | | Early on the legions were on "Team Rome". Scipio Africanus | and Asiaticus conquered large regions but never turned their | armies against Rome. Sulla turned his armies against Rome. As | did Julius. Legions were seen as more for the glory of a | general than for the glory of Rome. | | Second, conquering new territories was a way to increase a | person's prestige relative to their peers. So there was a | kind of friendly competition with various consuls trying to | outdo each other. | | The Empire changed everything. The Emperor already had | prestige relative to his peers. Trying to conquer new | territories was a high risk activity for not that much upside | (you were already emperor). For example, Augustus knew that | Crassus (died at Carrhae) and Mark Antony(defeated in | Parthia) had huge setbacks that undermined their position. | Even Augustus suffered the disaster at the Tueteborg, but | through a lot of PR effort was able to pawn it off on Varrus | who conveniently was not a part of the immediate Imperial | family. | | The other danger was that if there was a victory, it might be | enough to propel the commanding general to rivalry (see the | later example of Vespasian and the Jewish rebellion). | Augustus was an brilliant politician, but not that great of a | commander, and had to rely on others (see Agrippa) for actual | battlefield command. | | Thus given these risks Augustus was not very aggressive about | expansion (though he did conquer northwest Spain, and his | armies made some expeditions in Germania). | | Given that he was the first Emperor and ruled so long, he | kind of set the precedent. | | EDIT: | | It is interesting that instead of launching a punitive | expedition against Parthia to retrieve the captured Roman | standards from Carrhae, he recovered them through diplomatic | means. | gerdesj wrote: | Cicero sic in omnibus et Brutus aderat. | | Please be careful about describing events and people 2000+ | years ago, without attribution or sources. | ARandomerDude wrote: | > counters the notion that conquest was this glorious... | | Not really, especially in the face of so much evidence that the | Romans generally thought this way. It does show, however, that | not _everybody_ thought glory was worth it. That 's hardly | surprising, given that societies are always diverse | populations. But segments of society disagreeing with the | culture at large does not disprove that the culture had certain | proclivities. | amalcon wrote: | It's also probably why that incorrect image exists: projecting | such an image would have been absolutely vital for morale, and | those stories influence the stories we tell today. In many | ways, it's still vital for morale today, but it would have | mattered a lot more when morale was as decisive as it was then. | JoeDaDude wrote: | Philip Sabin, quoted in TFA, is a professor at King's College | London with a long list of publications related to warfare [1]. | He is also known as a war game designer where he puts his ideas | in rule sets designed to simulate the battles he has studied. See | his list of game credits in [2]. | | [1]. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/professor-philip-sabin | | [2]. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/6341/philip- | sabi... | Borrible wrote: | The Imperial Japanese Army in Manchuria in WWII used to use | living prisoners for their bayonet training. | usrusr wrote: | I suspect that we have a coping mechanism wired in where a | certain part of our mind tries to refute bad conscience over | something we have done that we consider really bad by repeating | the deedwhile internally shouting down the horrified parts | "see? it's not that bad, life goes on". Repeating the deed, or | exceeding. I'd imagine that conditioning (I refuse to call it | training) to have been exceptionally effective. | Borrible wrote: | It is estimated that the number of intraspecies killings in | humans is about six times higher than the average of all | mammals. | | The 20th century compared to the Middle Ages, was a peaceful | affair. It's estimated that in the good olden times about 12 | percent of recorded deaths were inflicted by killing, in the | century of two Great Wars, the Holocaust and some minor | naughties like the Holodomor, Cambodia, Rwanda etc. just | about 1.3 percent. | | It seems humans don't have to be taught to suppress a | "natural" kill inhibition, but to suppress a natural tendency | to kill. You know, I guess there is a reason, God Allmighty | had to forbid it explicitly in almost all of his writings | from time immemorial. It's always itching the brains of his | loverly creatures so much that somehow they can't let it go. | | By the way, those Japanese believed wholeheartedly they did | it for a greater good and it would strengthen them to inflict | severe fear, pain and death on their enemies. They didn't | needed to be desensitized. | _the_inflator wrote: | Not only pre-modern. I got to know quite a couple of WWII | veterans. PTSD was invented for them and coping mechanism #1 was | alcohol. | | During the 80th you could witness a lot of vets, who were blind, | men who had lost limbs - quite common here. Not to mention rape | for the women. | | These folks shaped the daily live. | kerblang wrote: | Not sure about what's being said here but given what other | comments are claiming | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder... | | > Early in 1978, the diagnosis term "post-traumatic stress | disorder" was first recommended in a working group finding | presented to the Committee of Reactive Disorder | | > The addition of the term to the DSM-III was greatly | influenced by the experiences and conditions of U.S. military | veterans of the Vietnam War. | | Ham-fisted a film as it was, First Blood w/ Sylvester Stallone | really launched the term into the American consciousness and | completely changed the perception and sympathy towards Vietnam | veterans. The DVD commentary is arguably more interesting than | the movie. | chrisseaton wrote: | > PTSD was invented for them | | You think nobody suffered PTSD before WW2? Look up the battle | shock that people suffered in WW1. | conorcleary wrote: | They're referring to the semantic term. Also 'shell shock' is | a more common term for WW1's version. | kloch wrote: | George Carlin had a classic bit on the topic of evolving | names for PTSD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0 | Group_B wrote: | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0 | shitpostbot wrote: | sandworm101 wrote: | PTSD is also less common in soldiers than in other jobs. Many | types of doctors (oncology, some branches of pediatrics) are | pretty much expected to experience symptoms after a given | number of years. It is also very very common amongst train | engineers. And prison guards. | carapace wrote: | With apologies to those for whom this is just dreamstuff... | | A long time ago I was trying various therapists to get help with | some personal problems, and one of them did something that they | called "germ-line regression". This was like a hypnotic past life | regression, but rather than going back through previous | incarnations, it was going back through the genetic line of my | ancestors. | | We went back to a man who lived in Europe at the time when the | Romans were making inroads up there. His name was something like | "Otygh" and he was a huge "Conan the Barbarian"-looking dude, | biggest and toughest guy in his village. He was pretty much the | top of the local food chain and social hierarchy, no one above | him but the gods themselves. | | And then the Romans show up... | | They're short (not too short, there were standards, but shorter | than the barbarians), smelly (garlic eaters, eh?), weak and | (seemingly) stupid, they're like beast-men, orcs. They should be | easy to defeat, every other living thing has been, but damned if | they don't keep winning fights! They always win!? WTF!? How is | this possible? I can't exaggerate the rage and frustration Otygh | felt at losing to these Romans. It was totally incomprehensible. | | For what it's worth, which may not be much, Otygh _loved_ battle. | Far from terrifying, it was exhilarating, right up until he | started losing and the Romans torched his village and killed or | enslaved everybody he knew and loved. Don 't shed any tears for | him, he was a murderous dickhead who did the very same thing to | other villages. | the_biot wrote: | If that helped you, or at least gave you some enjoyment in a | fun story to tell, good for you. But you should know that the | therapist that did this was an absolute quack. | | Please, don't seek help from quacks. | carapace wrote: | > If that helped you, or at least gave you some enjoyment in | a fun story to tell, good for you. | | It did help, not enough to keep going to that therapist but | it helped. (I left out the cathartic part of the | story/dream.) | | > But you should know that the therapist that did this was an | absolute quack. | | What would happen if I didn't know that? | lifeisstillgood wrote: | >>> combat as a dynamic balance of mutual dread | | enough said ... | DicIfTEx wrote: | Another interesting exploration of maniples is available at | https://yewtu.be/watch?v=croWDsDhgPo, at the end of which he | references a excellent battle scene from the HBO's _Rome_ | (https://yewtu.be/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0). | | The pike scene from _Alatriste_ | (https://yewtu.be/watch?v=4y6agtVxWi8&t=125) also gives a good | idea of how terrifying close-quarters battle must've been | (disclaimer: I'm not a historian so I can't vouch for the | historical accuracy). Imagine being the little guy with the | dagger who has to duck under all that. | EarthLaunch wrote: | Interesting read! Funnily, this reminds me of World of Warcraft | 40 vs 40 horde vs alliance battles in Alterac Valley (in | vanilla). Can a game battle be taken as a realistic simulation of | real battle? Anyway, it matches this description of grouping. | | Depending on the current meta, both sides would generally urge | each other to 'charge' immediately to the enemy base and win. | This was called rushing the base. However, sometimes the opposing | side would mount a defense. In that case, a battle line would | naturally form. Both sides would face off at 40 yards, which was | roughly the maximum spellcasting range. They would pick at each | other with long range spells, cautiously, no one wanting to do a | suicide charge. | | Then smaller teams on each side (cohorts?) would urge each other | to charge in simultaneously. A grouped warrior or mage +healer, | if they charged in together, could decimate (yes) the enemy. When | that happened, the enemy would attempt to back up. Sometimes they | couldn't back up fast enough; they had overcommitted. Then they | got 'wiped'. Other times, they retreated and the battle line was | re-established closer to their base. | atwood22 wrote: | While pre-modern battlefields were certainly horrific, I wonder | which is more terrifying: | | 1) Hand-to-hand combat where your fate is decided within a few | seconds but you have some control over the situation. | | 2) Sitting in cover while artillery shells rain down randomly | around you. | forgetfulness wrote: | The article claims that the former is, soldiers fled trenches | where they'd have been getting shelled the moment the enemy | managed to get close enough with hand to hand weapons. | goodpoint wrote: | The latter is way more terrifying because lack of agency | multiplies fear. | | Not to mention that modern war is way, way, way more deadly. | mynameishere wrote: | If I remember correctly the book "on killing" discusses this | very question--the short answer is that hand-to-hand combat is | far more terrifying because it has an innate, animalistic | psychological component. To see the face of someone who wants | to kill you is far more traumatic than a metal tube from the | sky. That tube does not hate you. That tube won't show up in | your dreams. | engineer_22 wrote: | Go test it out. Come back and report your findings. | burnished wrote: | How do you reckon melee combat is finished so quickly? | piyh wrote: | Watch any UFC match, then extrapolate that to the death. | jessaustin wrote: | Humans with penetrating wounds to the torso don't fight much | longer. Such wounds can be created with sharpened sticks (as | well as a variety of slightly more advanced weapons), while | preventing such wounds requires armor of complicated | manufacture. Humans with concussive damage to the head tend | to stop defending themselves, which also means they don't | fight much longer. Such wounds can be created by anything | dense, such as rocks or big sticks (as well as a variety of | slightly more advanced weapons), while preventing such wounds | requires very modern high-quality helmets. Once steel and | higher-quality swords and polearms came along, a variety of | new types of wounds became more likely, many of which also | quickly led to cessation of fighting on their victims' part. | | Even unarmed fights are usually shorter than portrayed in | popular fiction. If ancient battles lasted days, that's | because they were organized to move combatants around and | avoid actual combat until advantage could be taken. Melee | between two groups of armed humans could be over in less than | a minute. Note that the most common way for melee to cease | would be for the losing side to retreat (perhaps without | those of their number who had already succumbed), which is | viable when ranged weapons aren't used. | chewz wrote: | I have read opinion (and don't have source at hand) that as | horrific as battlefields were it suited human nature well. The | clashes lasted minutes (and most battles were series of clashes | rather then day long non-stop combat) and even during multi day | battles (like Pharsalus or Philippi) there were night breaks | etc. | | Being in constant danger for days (like WW1 trench warfare) is | more traumatizing for a human. | larsrc wrote: | The amount of control over the situation in hand-to-hand combat | is extremely limited, especially for the poorly trained | fighters making up much of pre-modern armies. | t_mann wrote: | You can try to back out, which was in fact extremely common, | especially among the poorly trained. Soldiers in trenches | couldn't even let their head protrude above the edge (to not | get shot by snipers), and had to live in horrendous | conditions for months. | morninglight wrote: | If you were in a battlefield that was not terrifying, you were | not in a battlefield. | [deleted] | t_mann wrote: | The efficiency of well-trained armies such as the imperial | legions at their peak just defies belief. At the battle of | Watling Street in Britain, two Roman legions (~10,000 soldiers, | including auxiliaries) faced off against an estimated 230,000 | tribal warriors. They came out victorious, with minuscule losses | (~400) compared to an estimated 80,000 Britons (not all warriors) | who left their lives in the battle. The odds were so heavily | stacked against the Romans prior to the battle that the commander | of the Legio II Augusta had refused an order to join the | outnumbered troops (and committed suicide after hearing the | outcome). | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_of_Boudica | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_II_Augusta | chewz wrote: | On the other hand Cannae... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae | t_mann wrote: | Well, two well-trained armies facing each other is a wholly | different story, as the example shows. | bee_rider wrote: | It would be interesting to try and model this scenario in a | videogame (the Total War series has a morale system of course, | but it doesn't seem to quite match this description -- units with | good "leadership" bonuses can sustain fighting basically from | full strength to death), or a pen-and-paper RPG (the idea that | the neutral state of armies is a sort of stand-off situation | could be beneficial for a couple reasons -- mechanically simpler | with less going on, the players can perform heroic feats in the | stand-off area, and the psychological differences between the | various fantasy races could play with the scenario | interestingly). | jaqalopes wrote: | Just a small contribution to the discussion: my understanding is | that alcohol also had a lot to do with loosening soldiers up | enough that they'd be willing to actually charge the enemy. They | don't call it "liquid courage" for nothing. | larsrc wrote: | Methinks a key difference in "terror level" is that in close | combat, you see the enemy and their deadly possibly bloodied | weapons up close. Much more psychologically present. Ranged | weapons give a different overall stress of "I could suddenly die | without warning", but you're not facing your death as clearly. | jbandela1 wrote: | > The losers could suffer appalling casualties in the battle | itself or in the ensuing pursuit, but the victors rarely suffered | more than 5 per cent fatalities even in drawn-out engagements. | | One of Rome's biggest advantages was that their training and | discipline were such that even when they lost, they would often | still extract a high price from the opponent (see Pyrrhus). | | This could be a real problem during civil wars and the opposing | Roman legions would devastate each other. | cercatrova wrote: | Well, except for Cannae and other Hannibalic battles. | WJW wrote: | Or the ambush in the Teutoburg Forest where the Romans lost | 16k+ troops vs only minor losses for the Germanic tribes. | t_mann wrote: | Do you have a source for the 'only minor losses for the | Germanic tribes'? Afaik we know very little about the | Germanic side at all. Most of what we know is in fact due | to Roman historians who mostly wrote about the events | decades and centuries after they happened. | jbandela1 wrote: | Yeah and there was also Carrhae. | | But those cases either involved a brilliant general | (Hannibal was probably top 10 of all time generals) or else | ambushes in unfamiliar territory far from their home base. | | I think the original point still stands. | cercatrova wrote: | From Livy's History of Rome, when Scipio Africanus and | Hannibal met at a party once: | | > Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the | greatest general of all time. Hannibal replied: | 'Alexander, King of the Macedonians, because with a small | force he routed armies of countless numbers, and because | he traversed the remotest lands. Merely to visit such | lands transcended human expectation.' | | > Asked whom he would place second, Hannibal said: | 'Pyrrhus. He was the first to teach the art of laying out | a camp. Besides that, no one has ever shown nicer | judgement in choosing his ground, or in disposing his | forces. He also had the art of winning men to his side; | so that the Italian peoples preferred the overlordship of | a foreign king to that of the Roman people, who for so | long had been the chief power in that country.' | | > When Africanus followed up by asking whom he ranked | third, Hannibal unhesitatingly chose himself. Scipio | burst out laughing at this, and said: 'What would you | have said if you had defeated me?' 'In that case', | replied Hannibal, 'I should certainly put myself before | Alexander and before Pyrrhus - in fact, before all other | generals!' | | > This reply, with its elaborate Punic subtlety, and this | unexpected kind of flattery...affected Scipio deeply, | because Hannibal had set him (Scipio) apart from the | general run of commanders, as one whose worth was beyond | calculation. | ARandomerDude wrote: | The exceptions prove the rule, though. Cannae, Teutoburg, | etc. were permanently etched in the Roman mind, and | triggered immediate, major military campaigns in response. | If these events had not been so utterly unthinkable at the | time, the blowback simply wouldn't have materialized. | SHAKEDECADE wrote: | When pre-modern battlefields are brought up, I often think of the | Battle of the Bastards scene from Game of Thrones. One of the few | battle scenes that gives me the cold sweats. Watching the | absolutely suffocating clash of flesh and metal is horrific. | tmpz22 wrote: | That battle was a terrible representation of medieval warfare. | And it was still one of the better representations of the | entire show. | OJFord wrote: | Is there a similar show without the fantasy/supernatural | elements that you might recommend, if you see what I mean? | | I don't need it to be historically accurate (if anything I'd | prefer it didn't even pretend to be about 'Romans' or | whatever, like GoT doesn't, since then there's an historical | truth for it to (likely) miss) but the more GoT went on the | more dragony, visiony, giants-y, etc. it seemed to get, and | while I enjoyed it I do find it harder to engage (or perhaps | rather easier to disengage, take a while to get into, etc.) | with that sort of stuff. | tmp_anon_22 wrote: | HBO's Rome is pretty good, but only two seasons. Its from | the mid 00s. | danenania wrote: | 'Vikings' is great. It has many battles and focuses a lot | on strategy and tactics. | | It has a touch of the supernatural since it's based on the | Icelandic sagas, but it's a fairly minor element. | the_biot wrote: | It really was terrible, but the aspect of the fighters | getting pushed ever closer together, to the point where it's | hard to watch it's so terrifying, really did happen. The | battle of Cannae was apparently like that, where soldiers | were so terrified they started digging holes to crawl into. | | The article mentions this as possibly one of the things that | make a flanking attack so terrifying -- it would squish the | ranks together in a way that a frontal attack didn't. | westpfelia wrote: | Some real terror was the early days of WW1. We had long | standing generals who just did not know how to adjust to the | (at the time) modern battlefield. So they would just lead mass | charges into fortified positions with artillery and machine | guns. It was the definition of a meat grinder. | | I would suggest checking out Dan Carlins Hardcore History | podcast for more about it! The series he did on WW1 was called | "Blueprint for Armageddon" Its really good and Dan does a great | job of pulling you into the narrative. | sofixa wrote: | > Some real terror was the early days of WW1 | | > So they would just lead mass charges into fortified | positions with artillery and machine guns | | That wasn't just in the early days, lots of countries, armies | and generals failed to adapt. Cadorna from Italy, von | Hotzendorf from Austria-Hungary, most Ottoman and Russian | generals sent their men to die the same way at the end as at | the beginning. Germany, France, UK learned (sometimes) from | their mistakes, but not everyone did. For instance when the | US joined, the US commander, Pershing, disregarded all allied | military experience and advice and the US army had to learn | everything the hard way because they were led by someone | stuck in another type of conflict (punitive expedition | against an inferior enemy). | | But the begining of WWI was especially terrible due to the | the emphasis on attack, colourful uniforms, and the disregard | for defense. Machine guns mowing troops marching with | music... There were mass charges in the first weeks and in | the last weeks, but they were vastly different (creeping | barrage to protect infantry and soften up the enemy, helmets | to protect heads, coordination, etc.) | pdpi wrote: | > So they would just lead mass charges into fortified | positions with artillery and machine guns. It was the | definition of a meat grinder. | | I read something a while back that, while I'm not sure how | accurate it is, got sort of seared into my brain. In medieval | times, permanent fortified positions (castles and such) were | of the utmost importance, and sieges were a major part of | war. With the arrival of gunpowder, cannons could wreck walls | and other fortifications, and warfare in the open field | largely replaced siege warfare. | | The single biggest military failure of WW1 (by both sides) | was that the then-modern military doctrine told them to treat | trench warfare as slow-moving open warfare, where it | should've instead been fought as a slightly mobile form of | siege warfare. | icegreentea2 wrote: | "Fighting siege warfare" means that both sides can expect | to "win" by doing nothing and sitting in their defenses. | It's unclear if this really applies to WW1 Western Front. | | Perhaps Germany was in a position were it was happy to sit | in their trenches and just endure, but France was not. | France had to be able to compel Germany to come to terms | and restore French territory (which we should also remember | contained a good chunk of French industry). While the | blockade of Germany was clearly effective, it's not clear | to this day (and certainly would not have been clear to the | western allies at the time) if the blockade alone could | have compelled Germany to terms. | | And certainly the western allies DID attempt to | strategically outflank Germany. It just... didn't really | work. | | WW1 generals understood sieges. They generally understood | what fortifications could and could not do. There's a | reason the Belgiums kept building forts. There's a reason | why Germany built ever bigger artillery. WW1 generals got | to see the Russo-Japanese war 10 years ago. They got to see | a 6 month siege of Port Arthur. They got to see the | ridiculous causalities that modern weapons could inflict. | But they also saw something - the attack WORKED. The costs | were awful, but the Japanese achieved their goals. | pdpi wrote: | > "Fighting siege warfare" means that both sides can | expect to "win" by doing nothing and sitting in their | defenses. It's unclear if this really applies to WW1 | Western Front. | | The problem with a siege isn't that you win by doing | nothing, it's that the attacker always loses, hard, by | trying a head-on assault. The really novel aspect of | trench warfare is that you had both sides in a fortified | highly-defensible position at the same time. | ghaff wrote: | Yes, and of course after WWI the French in particular | largely took the lesson that forts work; they just need | to be bigger, better, and more numerous. | ivanonhn wrote: | I think this is still true for the case of a conventional | war. This can be checked in Ukraine right now. As far as I | know, most of the losses of Russian troops at the beginning | of the conflict are associated with hidden groups of | Ukrainian soldiers who did not show up while the Russian | tanks were making the initial march. And then, when supply | caravans were heading to the front line, these hidden | groups instantly attacked them from the side, and then hid | again in the woods by the roads. Then the Russians changed | tactics - no rush, but intense shelling of the front line | with all kinds of artillery for several days, then a small | advance, then a sweep, and then the cycle repeats. | usrusr wrote: | The good news would have been that without encirclement, | siege warfare would have been delightfully similar to | peacetime. The bad news that this war would still be going | on. Which would be good news again, because of all those | other wars that could not have happened in the meantime. | ceeplusplus wrote: | The pile of bodies in that battle is completely unrealistic. | About the only thing that was realistic was the shield wall. | But then the writers left a huge plot hole because the good | guys had a giant that could have just broken the lines. | AlbertCory wrote: | A book [1] that's nearly 30 years old now by one of the best | military historians of his age, John Keegan: _The Face of | Battle_. It looks at what it was actually like to be there, in | the midst of it, at three famous battles. I need to read it | again. | | [1] https://www.amazon.com/Face-Battle-Study-Agincourt- | Waterloo/...? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-29 23:00 UTC)