The horror of ancient warfare

[Conan]

I love ancient warfare. The history, tactics, the campaigns its so ancient, distant, its almost like fantasy. The battles such as Thermopylae, are noble, glorious, maybe even romantic.

Are there any sources that paint the darker side of ancient warfare? The detail of the heat of battle? The unimaginable violence.

What it was like to stand in the front line holding your shield tight and bracing for the impact of the charging Celtic enemy. To be at the front of the legion, your shield arm is almost numb, your so exhausted every thrust/ slash of your gladius is agony.

What it must have been like to thrust your spear into the face of your opposing enemy, step over him and allow the men in the ranks behind you to finish him of, making sure he doesn't get back up.

To have to hack through a mans desperately raised hands and forearms to deliver the killer head blow.

To stand in the baking sun after a grueling, grinding battle, you so exhausted your nearly sick, dehydrated, light headed, covered in blood only to raise your aching head to see fresh enemy troops formed up and heading to your position.

Is there any sources that identify the psychological impact that battle/war must have had on some soldiers?

[desert]

Don't forget the smell of feces. Lots and lots of feces.

TBH, that's the one thing I hate about ancient warfare. All the dead men with feces in their underwear and around their abdominal wounds. Smells really bad.

[johnhughthom]

I always think that loading screen of the Ptolemy guys finishing off the Seleukid guys really brings home the brutality that must have been ancient warfare.

[Conan]

I always think that loading screen of the Ptolemy guys finishing off the Seleukid guys really brings home the brutality that must have been ancient warfare.

Same here....

I think its a gripping piece of artwork. I'd love to see another showing a similar scene.

[antisocialmunky]

Don't forget the smell of feces. Lots and lots of feces.

That can be said about history in general because until very recently, you have animals pooping in the street, people pooping in the street, and people pooping else where and dumping it in the street.:dizzy2:

[Shylence]

I think in the past people may have been slighty more desensitised,if thats how its spelt, to the violence Life was harsh and maybe it was just accepted.

There were no lovely little (actully crap) Disney films to give to your children to make them learn how it all ends happliy ever after.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Same here....

I think its a gripping piece of artwork. I'd love to see another showing a similar scene.
:yes:


On the other hand, bloody people we are. So much for people who would probably shit in their pants upon seeing a decapitation... But hey, at least I hated 300.

[gamegeek2]

Yeah, I never watched the movie - total insult to what actually happened, and it seriously misinformed people - I had to give some talks to my friends about the crap that 300 threw at our minds.

I also watched the History Channel documentary on Thermopylae, which is possibly the most historically accurate documentary on an ancient battle ever. See here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHBpR9lbfIA) - an amazing work that can appeal to both history buffs and "normal" people.

[desert]

Hmm, so you were talking about that documentary. Yep, I saw it a year or two ago. I liked all the stuff they had about Themistocles.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't understand the hatred toward 300, at least people know what the Battle of Thermopylae (my browser spell check doesn't even recognize the word) is. Any attempt to find out more about it, will quickly reveal any glaring inaccuracies the movie has.

[Fixiwee]

I always think that loading screen of the Ptolemy guys finishing off the Seleukid guys really brings home the brutality that must have been ancient warfare.
But have you noticed the guy in the back giving the other dude a massage? Take a close look, they are having a good time.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Roman soldiers, and pretty much anyone capable of holding a tight and disciplined formation rotated often, so whenever they could the front ranks would give room to the fresher men in the rear ones and so on.

Celtic warfare was very much reliant on charges. First a devastating attack swept on the enemy lines with the intent of quickly breaking a foe, and if that didn't happen maybe some prolongued fighting would ensue but there was a good chance that the least disciplined among the Celtic host would cause a chain rout. So the sight of fresh troops while you're exhausted and bloody is perhaps exaggerated and only happened when the enemy vastly outnumbered you.

Yet there was a lot of room for other kinds of brutality, and the familiar stench of death. Maggot therapy was actually used due to the fact that American Civil War veterans would lie wounded on the field for days, causing maggots that eventually came or appeared to eat their necrosis and ironically heal them if they survived; in fact being hurt and not being able to walk was practically a death sentence due to disease and the likes.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Is there any sources that identify the psychological impact that battle/war must have had on some soldiers?

Take this as you will; but in the Old Testament of the Bible when Joshua and Moses were leading the Israelites into Canaan from Egypt, I believe it was decreed that all warriors had to stay outside the camp for 7 days as they were "ritually impure." I've read that modern sociologists believe this was more as a way to ensure that the men got most of their emotions/rage back in check before they returned amongst the unarmed populace.


As a USMC M1A1 tank crewman and veteran of the 2nd Battle of Fallujah (Nov 2004) I'll tell you that killing a person is entirely life-altering (unless, presumably you're a psychopath).

Seeing someone die is a change in itself. Imagine, if you can, a person - a mother/brother/father/son/sister/uncle/aunt/cousin/child (all of the above?) to someone else being alive, walking, talking, breathing, laughing, crying one instant, and then BAM a lifeless rag doll falling/tumbling whichever way gravity/inertia take them. It's unsettling in the least, and not even comparable to seeing an animal die.

Now, imagine being the cause of that. Imagine that no matter what this person was doing to you or to others, he did have some good, redeemable virtues to him. He did take care of his family and friends. He was once a little tiny baby that made his parents hearts swell with joy at every coo and gurgle. He made some woman's heart flutter. He helped an old woman cross the street. That person, whatever combination of good/evil he was, is irreplaceably gone now and there's nothing you or anyone can do to take it back.

I've seen people turn into the proverbial pink mist. I've seen an RPG go through a man's chest and leave a hole and like in the cartoons where he looked down and all his guts fell out, still alive as he hit the ground. I've looked into the eyes of a teenager who ran weapons in a vehicle past our blockade as I shot him in the throat (only because the round dropped over distance.)

I would have to say that fighting in hand to hand combat would be the most frightening experience ever. I was lucky to be surrounded by 72 tons of depleted uranium and steel, and part of the greatest fighting force in history. True, as humans we have adrenaline, some have cultural expectations/acceptance of violence, and there is such a thing as going into a blood rage/seeing red/blacking out to the point where your body simply acts to survive without your mind comprehending what's going on; but still, you'd have to be pretty bad ass to go on doing this for years and years. Even though you dehumanize your enemy and it does get easier after the first one (hell, sometimes its like fish in a barrel and you and your buddies laugh your asses off as you see the enemy getting blown to pieces or gunned down like ducks in a carnival game) I'm sure there was a ton of moral justification going on in the hearts/minds of ancient warriors.

Think about it and theorize all you want, I admit I still love playing this game and can imagine being in place in the battles; but it's a lot different in real life.

[Gleemonex]

I think in the past people may have been slighty more desensitised,if thats how its spelt, to the violence Life was harsh and maybe it was just accepted.

It would be more accurate, from an anthropological perspective, to say that we in the more industrialised nations have been sensitised to violence. Notice how brutally violent children (mostly boys, but girls also) try to be in their awkward, chubby little bodies. They have to be taught non-violence and co-operation, yet smacking someone and taking their stuff is totally natural.


There were no lovely little (actully crap) Disney films to give to your children to make them learn how it all ends happliy ever after.

Too true. One need simply look at the original Brothers Grimm tales for that.


I don't understand the hatred toward 300, at least people know what the Battle of Thermopylae (my browser spell check doesn't even recognize the word) is. Any attempt to find out more about it, will quickly reveal any glaring inaccuracies the movie has.

If the ephors scene doesn't smack someone with the clue-by-four, nothing will.

With the near-universal glorification of soldiery (if not warfare) in ancient times, I doubt you'd find many willing or able to speak negatively of it. Even the famous multiculturalist Megas Alexandros seemed to have no issues with battle itself.

-Glee

[Dutchhoplite]

Thucidydes comes to mind.

[Kingsilver]

for a realistic, though fictional, portrayal of ancient warfare, i recomend you check out the 'tides of war', by steven pressfield. it describes some very intense scenes of hoplite warfare. a must read for any EB fan.

[geala]

A book which deals a bit with the ferocity of an ancient war is "A War like no other" by Hanson about the Peloponesian War between Athens and Sparta and allies.

Reading ancient sources one gets an impression of the inhumanity and cruelty of thinking of some old societies. For example in the Bible (e.g. Samuel) or in "De bello Gallico" from Caesar you find pretty examples for genocide, calmly reported with no sign of bad conscience. Genocide is of course not at all out of mode, but in modern times mostly tried to be concealed. A big progress in morality. :inquisitive:

Ancient battle descriptions are often a bit "low intensive", f.e. Xenophon. Thoukidides is a bit tougher but not as gory one might expect. The "Ilias" contains a lot about weapon against body and gives a vivid image of the merciless slaughter of bronze age battles. The book of Barry Strauss (don't know the English title, The Trojan War?) is a good research how the war could have been fought and how the fighters felt.

If you would like to know something about weapons and wounds, ancient and medieval findings could offer at least some impressions. Think about the bone findings at Maiden Castle with skulls that bore several marks of sword slashes against presumably already wounded and fallen victims. Same with the Wisby findings of the battle of 1361 or that of Towton 1461, where mass graves were detected.

That some cultural differences existed in the conception and adaption to the kind of war and its results you can see from the allegedly appalled reactions of the Greeks when they faced the sword wounds of their warriors hacked and stabbed to death in fights with the Romans. Such wounds seamed to be not the norm in Greek warfare before (because of the manner and technique of fighting).

[Phalanx300]

I don't understand the hatred toward 300, at least people know what the Battle of Thermopylae (my browser spell check doesn't even recognize the word) is. Any attempt to find out more about it, will quickly reveal any glaring inaccuracies the movie has.

Me neither, if anything it will interest people in history even more. Also, people will know at Thermopylae's existance, the existance of Sparta. A very vague picture, but better then those who know nothing. :juggle2:



This movie was based on a comic book, made to entertain people. I really liked the movie, spoiling it because it isn't Historical is not worth it. You might as well discard all movies then.:sweatdrop:

[Mooks]

Wouldnt be suprised if alot of ancient warriors were complete psycopaths by the time they were done. And also wouldnt be suprised if they met the warriors of today and called them pansys for being so concerned about killing people from a distance.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Actually they would most likely turn and run, or stand on their knees and cry and the sound and sight of our modern guns. Other than that given the fact that the modern professional soldier is very well trained and far better fed than even some ancient elites, they would probably stare at us, call us giants and weaken their resolve merely with it.

[Uticensis]

Are there any sources that paint the darker side of ancient warfare? The detail of the heat of battle? The unimaginable violence.

There are not many. Archilochus comes to mind. He didn't really write about the darker side of war, but his poetry sometimes mocked the supposed heroism of falling in battle (he was kicked out of Sparta for writing such poetry).

Also, as time went on in the ancient world, violence and gore seemed to be stressed more. An interesting example is the Column of Marcus Aurelius. Unlike Trajan's, which had the Roman soldiers acting heroic, building fortresses and bridges and easily defeating the barbarians, Marcus Aurelius' shows prisoners and civilians getting executed, women and children being enslaved, heads getting chopped off, even Roman soldiers losing (yet luckily getting saved by a storm). I would say around this time, with the Golden Age of Rome waning and the barbarians closing in, warfare was seen and depicted in a much grittier and violent way.

[C.LVCIANVS]

:army: To Salute Calvus Stolo.

Mooks & Basileos: you got right both. See the impact of warfares on different cultures; spanish conquistadores vs pre-colombian americans, modern european vs stone age. Both were terrified by the counterparts: firearms, steel, horses panicked the natives; human sacrifices, cannibalism, ferocity & pagan rituals makes tremble the spaniards. WAR is an human invention; DEATH is in Nature.

So that comes the Question: WHO is a psycopath?

Answer: Me. :wiseguy: Or better: Everyone doesn't understand this concept.

:jester: Take it only as a fool's opinion.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Psychological pressure is one very interesting subject. Battles fought in melee were definitely not a nice place to be. But I read in some memoirs (sp?) that from at least US civil war the most devastating to psychic were not the actual melee, but rather artillery and later machine gun fire. It reached peak during I world war, with trench warfare, when terror never ended, as artillery was constant threat, just like stupid charges against MG's. On the other hand warfare in ancient times was a lot of marching and camping and only few battles, when the winning side soldiers often haven't seen any fighting. Only 1-2 first rows out of 6 (roman) - 32 (deepest hellenistic) were affected by the actual combat if the battle went well.

Losses were also very small - 1 to 10% for the winner and to 20% for looser. I was shocked when I found out that in the Napoleonic period losses for the winner could be as high as 50%! And differences between winner and looser losses were often rather small.

Good info can be found researching amount of volunteers to Roman army in II c BC. For example wars in Spain or in Liguria were extremely unpopular, while finding people to fight in Greece or for III Punic War was not a problem. Hard fighting in poor, mountainous terrain was not fun while rich lands, with consolidated rule that would be broken after 1-2 battles received flood of happy recruits.

Edit: What's more, piercing or cutting wounds from ancient battles were much easier to heal than large calibre musket and rifle bullet, not to mention artillery or mine wounds. Greek surgeons were also very good.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

:army: To Salute Calvus Stolo.

Ave!

[Olaf Blackeyes]

Honestly the ancients would shit themselves at the sight of modern warfare, for many of the above mentioned reasons. They would also probably look at us like demons or some other monsters. I mean the ways that mordern men can kill each other are 50 times as horrific as what the ancients had access to. War for the ancients was many days of marching puntuated by minutes of terrors in battles that probably lsted a day or two at the MOST, while modern warfare is that your have nothing but death and carnage all over the place, you are never safe, wounds are far more invasive, infective and impossible to heal and if things get REALLY crazy we start launching world-ending weaps at each other. I mean seriously if you were an ancient dude and you got flung into teh future by some time portal or whatever and you saw how we fight youd probably go insane and have to be locked up in a mental hospital.

EDIT: A Salute to Caluvs Stolo. Many thanks for fighting so i dont gotta get killed by lunatic terrorists or whatever. I mean the War in Iraq is stupid in my mind and you guys could be used a lot better in Afganistan or other places, but i respect you for fight for our freedoms and the freedoms of all of humanity (even though we dont deserve it) so many thanks!

[Respenus]

@ Calvus Stolo

Since you were wondering about the importance of morals in ancient warfare, I have an interesting article for you. It's more from a culturological point of view, but can still answer your question. I just hope you have some sort of access to read this article.

Runciman, W.G. 1998. Greek Hoplites, Warrior Culture, and Indirect Bias. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. December 1998, Volume 4: 731-751

[artavazd]

The Battle of Avarair
To quote Yeghisheh,

"Both sides being thus prepared and seized with a mighty rage and burnt with a wild fury, rushed against each p150other. The loud cry on both sides sounded like the clash of clouds, and the thundering sound of the noises rocked the caverns of the mountains.

"The countless helmets and the shining armor of the warriors glowed like the rays of the sun. The flashing thousands of swords and the swaying of innumerable spears seemed like an awful fire being poured down from heaven.

"But who can describe the tremendous tumult caused by these frightful noises -- the clangor of the shields and the snapping of the bow strings -- which deafened everyone alike?

"One should have seen the turmoil of the great crisis and the immeasurable confusion on both sides, as they clashed with each other in reckless fury. The dull-minded became frenzied; the cowards deserted the field; the brave dashed forward courageously, and the valiant roared. In a solid mass the great multitude held the river; and the Persian troops sensing the danger, became restless in their places; but the Armenian cavalry crossed the river and fell upon them with a mighty force. They attacked each other fiercely and many on both sides fell wounded on the field, rolling in agony.

[Cbvani]

There was a very good description of the aftermath of the battle of Arausio (spelling?) in Colleen McCullough's First Man in Rome, which is the first in an EXCELLENT series of late republic historical fiction. Basically, it sucked. The lack of water killed some that might've survived.

[KozaK13]

I can't remember where is saw it, but it was a skull with basically the face missing after an axe or pick blow. Though i think it was to do with medieval combat, im sure a man screaming, missing half his face would have been a common sight in ancient battles.
Wounds would probably be different for diffferent combatants. Like lots of decapitations and dismemberments in celtic warfare considering thier penchant for slashing with long swords. Lots of stab woulds in roman warfare and then probably some nasty wounds to the throat, face and joints in hoplite warfare.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think ancient battles had their fair share of terror. For one thing sleeping in a fortified camp that might be set alight at night is no picnic. At the same time the ancients had their share of horrific experiences, imagine marching into an arrow storm, or watch a ball of slate from a Roman ballista slam into the ground and everyone get cut to shreds. Also, if you got cut you had about an even chance of survival if the wound was not a bad one.

[Novellus]

I don't understand the hatred toward 300, at least people know what the Battle of Thermopylae (my browser spell check doesn't even recognize the word) is. Any attempt to find out more about it, will quickly reveal any glaring inaccuracies the movie has.


For an EB person, they would look at the movie and be like "Who replaced the Spartiartes Hoplitai with Gaesetae?" Ugh...criticizing the movie could be a thread on its own.

On topic though, it is very difficult to imagine the horrors of the battlefield. Today, we can hit targets with missiles from across continents, literally from the comfort of our own homes. Battles were very personal and up-close. You could see the eyes of your enemy before you end his life. You can see your comrade's life end right in front of you. These still take place today. One of the most graphic horrors I believe are the suicide bombers. And when one sacrifices his life to save the others by tackling the bomber, it is very difficult to take in. It is not a clean shot from a bullet. The body is broken and destroyed by the blast. In close combat back then, the blood spilt so uncleanly that the graceful deaths that are romanticized in movies are almost an insult to the dead.

It is strange how humans have found so many ways to kill in span of our existence.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

@ Calvus Stolo
Runciman, W.G. 1998. Greek Hoplites, Warrior Culture, and Indirect Bias. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. December 1998, Volume 4: 731-751

Thanks, I'll check that out the next time I'm at the library....err, um "bibliothêkê".




EDIT: A Salute to Caluvs Stolo. Many thanks for fighting so i dont gotta get killed by lunatic terrorists or whatever. I mean the War in Iraq is stupid in my mind and you guys could be used a lot better in Afganistan or other places, but i respect you for fight for our freedoms and the freedoms of all of humanity (even though we dont deserve it) so many thanks!

I appreciate your thanks. I just wanted to impart a bit of the psychological impact that I experienced in warfare as a response to the OT. Hopefully, it was found useful.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

For an EB person, they would look at the movie and be like "Who replaced the Spartiartes Hoplitai with Gaesetae?" Ugh...criticizing the movie could be a thread on its own.
EPIC LOLZ!!!!!!!!


It is strange how humans have found so many ways to kill in span of our existence.
Whats even worse is that humanity is DRIVEN FORWARD by said death and slaughter. After all 99% of all inventions are created by military ppl then declassified for civilian uses. Honestly, when the aliens get here, WTF r they gonna think about us eh?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Whats even worse is that humanity is DRIVEN FORWARD by said death and slaughter. After all 99% of all inventions are created by military ppl then declassified for civilian uses. Honestly, when the aliens get here, WTF r they gonna think about us eh?

I think you could argue, that its competition not death and slaughter that provided the drive. No one/country just decides to start building weapons to kill people better, unless there is a powerful enemy that threatens his/its existence and the only way to survive against it is have better weapons, soldiers, gear etc...

[Marcus Ulpius]

I don't think the warfare now is less violent that it was back then, in ancient days. What changed is the technology, that sometimes soldiers don't get to see the results of their "work". Now we can have a lovely girl, sitting somewhere in the HQ and with one push of the button she can incinerate the whole area. It doesn't seem like violence to her, but people still die in horrible ways.

We probably got more sensitive to a direct violence. Not many of modern people would be able to fight in the old fashioned way, looking at the face of the enemy and seeing the war close. Those who do this can tell that war is still violent and terrible. But even that increased sensitivity to violence is something that is the product of the modern Western humanistic education. I'm not sure this is true for many people in developing countries who still fight in old fashioned way, only using modern tools of war.

[Fixiwee]

99% of our inventions are made by military people? Well it is true that war has a tendency to move technology forwards, but I wouldn't go that far to say that most inventions are connected to war.
Go look at the time of inventions, the 18th and 19th century. So many of the devices come from the civil sector. So many inventors tried to improve the life, and not the efforts of destroying it.

Also, I don't think it would be a problem to train people to face to face combat nowadays. All you have to insert into peoples mind is pure hatred of the enemies. Think of any modern war fought with extreme methods, like the balkan wars. Just replace their weapons with swords and I garantue you that they will run onto each other and cut their throats. It's a psychological effect of lowering the moral restraints. E.g. the genoiced in Rwanda was mostly peformed by knifes and machetes. And they had a better kill-ratio per hour (sorry for this cold term) then the Nazis during the Shoa.
Being human implies to be unhuman at the best.

[Chester]

Why are people giving 300 a hard time? I've been to a house party where that film played in the background on several flat screens, with sound off, just for a stunning visual picture;which was the point of the film.

300 is based on a comic, which in turn is loosely based on a historical event. I was never under the impression while watching the film that it was anything more than fantasy action. It had demons in it for crying out loud!

[Hax]

Can we move on with this topic? 300 has been discussed ad nauseam.

[KozaK13]

Inancient warfare people couldn't be blown to bits...at least not in the same way that they can now...plus there was never a death toll of 60 million.

[Conan]

I actually posted this topic on the UNRV History forum's some time ago and someone posted these quotes. They really paint a vivid account and give you some idea of what it must have been like.


Cassius Dio is actually a decent source regarding some of the more sordid details. He is also well known for the flamboyant speeches of generals.

There are many samples, but the battle of Pharsalus provides some detail...

From Book 41.60 (The entire battle takes place between ch. 52 - 63)
"And all this took place, as I said, not in one spot, but in many places at once, scattered all about, so that with some contending at a distance and others fighting at close quarters, this body smiting its opponents and that group being struck, one detachment fleeing and another pursuing, many infantry battles and many cavalry battles as well were to be seen. 5 Meanwhile many incredible things were taking place. One man after routing another would himself be turned to flight, and another who had avoided an opponent would in turn attack him. One soldier who had struck another would be wounded himself, and a second, who had fallen, would kill the enemy who stood over him. Many died without being wounded, and many when half dead kept on slaying. Some were glad and sang paeans, while the others were distressed and uttered lamentations, so that all places were filled with shouts and groans. The majority were thrown into confusion by this fact, for what was said was unintelligible to them, because of the confusion of nations and languages, and alarmed them greatly, and those who could understand one panother suffered a calamity many times worse; for in addition to their own misfortunes they could hear and at the same time see those of their neighbours."

Another... The Battle of Philippi, from Book 47.44
"For a long time there was pushing of shield against shield and thrusting with the sword, as they were at first cautiously looking for a chance to wound others without being wounded themselves, since they were as eager to save themselves as to slay their antagonists; but later, when their ardour increased and their rage was inflamed, they rushed together recklessly and paid no more attention to their own safety, but in their eagerness to destroy their adversaries would even throw away their own lives. Some cast away their shields and seizing hold of the foes facing them choked them by means of their helmets while they struck them in the back, or else tore away their armour and smote them on the breast. Others seized hold of the swords of their opponents, who were thus as good as unarmed, and then ran their own into their bodies; and some exposed a part of their own bodies to be wounded and thus gained a freer use of the rest. Some clutched their opponents in an embrace that prevented either one from striking and perished through the commingling of their swords and bodies. Some died of a single blow, others of many, and they neither were conscious of their wounds, since death forestalled their suffering, nor lamented their end, since they never reached the point of grieving. One who killed another thought in the excessive joy of the moment that he could never die; and whoever fell lost consciousness and had no knowledge of his state."

[HayGuy]

I don't understand the hatred toward 300, at least people know what the Battle of Thermopylae (my browser spell check doesn't even recognize the word) is. Any attempt to find out more about it, will quickly reveal any glaring inaccuracies the movie has.

Same here. A lot of people take what happens in the film and go away thinking "Man, they didn't use war-rhinos or the immortals didn't have giants..." they miss the point. The film is told from the perspective of a guy who is telling a story about the 300 (plus their allies there) that is supposed to inspire troops that are outnumbered 10 to 1 or more as shown at the end of the movie.

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

@ Conan:

Beautifully vivid, yet non-specific imagery. Excellent source; truly helps you imagine the scene.

[Hax]

Same here. A lot of people take what happens in the film and go away thinking "Man, they didn't use war-rhinos or the immortals didn't have giants..." they miss the point. The film is told from the perspective of a guy who is telling a story about the 300 (plus their allies there) that is supposed to inspire troops that are outnumbered 10 to 1 or more as shown at the end of the movie.



Can we move on with this topic? 300 has been discussed ad nauseam.

I don't like to quote myself.

[Subotan]

The Ancients would have been shocked by industrialisation, and none more so than the industrialisation of war.

[Watchman]

Heck, modern people were...

[Cbvani]

Whats even worse is that humanity is DRIVEN FORWARD by said death and slaughter. After all 99% of all inventions are created by military ppl then declassified for civilian uses. Honestly, when the aliens get here, WTF r they gonna think about us eh?

Can't remember where I heard this quote, its from a sci-fi story. An Earth General is speaking to an alien leader: We test nuclear weapons in our only biosphere! We nailed our god to a STICK! Don't f*** with Earth!"

[Subotan]

Heck, modern people were...

Touché. :shame:

[antisocialmunky]

You know, there's a niggling thing in the back of my head that if we brought some ancient soldiers to today. A lot of them would be like "That's totally sweet."

[Cambyses]

Well, today, we are as a society mostly scared of death IMO. In ancient times dying a good, brave death in battle was seen as the ultimate way to check out. Im sure there were many unwilling levies - and what not - that were horrified at being on the field of battle, but I strongly suspect that the vast majority of "proper" soldiers had been culturally (de)sensitized to the violence. And many must have come to glory in it, made a living out of it, kept coming back for more... I mean what sort of person would willingly become a mercenary?

Death was far more a part of life back then, people did not have the expectation of a "right" to live to at least 70 odd that everyone reading this post has no doubt had since childhood. I mean even in the most civilzed and developed societies child mortality was horrendous, which is why you didnt count as being alive officially until you were 12 in Roman censuses (censi?). Death was all around, and really there are not many nice ways to die, on or off a battlefield.

I just think, personally, we have to be careful not to impose our modern ideas or values when looking at such a radically different period. I mean these were people who would routinely cut the insides out of a still kicking animal and through all the blood and gore make divine proclamations - and lets not even get into the Roman "games".

Death, violence and brutality were an intrinsic part of life back then, not a shock that would jump out and horrify.

[Marcus Ulpius]

Death, violence and brutality were an intrinsic part of life back then, not a shock that would jump out and horrify.

I've cut the most of your post because it was a bit too long to quote in full form, but I think that last sentence is an example of a big mistake we make when talking about "modern" people and people of ancient era. The thing is, there's no "modern" people who are afraid of death, violence and view longevity as their birthright. There are different people, of different cultures who view life, death, war and violence differently. There are people that as you say, indeed are more sensitive to violence, afraid of death etc, etc; and there are people who view war, death and violence in a way that is not too different from the views of the ancient or medieval people.

[Cambyses]

Well indeed. Ultimately every individual who has ever lived or is yet to come will have their own unique view of such things. However, if we were to generalise I do believe it is fair to say that the average man alive today in Western society would be brutalised and horrified if they found themselves on an ancient battlefield - while a man of that age, a child of his own era if you will, would not. Generally. Of course if we were to discuss a particular people, time period or culture from any end of the scale the pendulum may swing more one way or t'other. Again, generally.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

You know, there's a niggling thing in the back of my head that if we brought some ancient soldiers to today. A lot of them would be like "That's totally sweet."

:smash::laugh4::smash::laugh4::smash::laugh4:
EPIC WIN!!!!!!!!!!

[Cyclops]

Great that gamers recognise the horror of war. I am horrified by the "war iz kewl" nonsense you see. That Sherman was right.


...I'll tell you that killing a person is entirely life-altering (unless, presumably you're a psychopath)...

Think about it and theorize all you want, I admit I still love playing this game and can imagine being in place in the battles; but it's a lot different in real life.

Great points you make, which cannot be stressed enough. I have a number of service and police friends and they tell me the story is the same over and again.


I'm sure there was a ton of moral justification going on in the hearts/minds of ancient warriors.

There's a lot of moral justification going on in the Bible and everywhere else. It takes a clear head to see above all the crap.

I guess the way you nerve guys up to face death is tell them they're heroes and treat them like kings when they get home. I'm 100% civilian but recently had surgery in a veteran's hospital (they have spare capacity so they accept overflow from the public system) and the facilites and staff were excellent.

I believe the English look after their vets reasonably well too: I visited Chelsea and spent some time with a physio attached to the "Artists Rifles" when I was in London. They had stories about Paddy Maine who won a truckload of DSO's: not a very happy person poor fella, but a real soldier.

[duncan.gill]

Having done a fair bit of psychology I think that war in the ancient world would have been “easier” than modern combat for a number of reasons:

1. society was a lot more violent – we do not have public executions any more whereas they would have grown up in a society where seeing someone tortured/executed may not have been such a huge deal. This would make seeing a similar thing on the battlefield as less of a shock.
2. the societies tended to glamorise war a lot more and so Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) may have looked different (this is a psychological condition that occurs after people experience a traumatic event – it involves a number of symptoms including flash backs etchttp://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/ptsd.htm). I read somewhere that even in the American Civil War these flashbacks of experiences were described as “war nostalgia” (which kind of has connotations of remembering good experiences). I find it interesting that the first time (AFAIK) that combat fatigue/PTSD became a major issue was around WW1.
3. In antiquity then the actual battles were much shorter and so they weren’t exposed to long periods of stress (e.g. battles that go on for weeks) except in the case of sieges.
4. I suspect that nowadays some people have a greater regard for human rights/suffering etc and so it is psychologically more problematic to inflict suffering on another human (and therefore has the potential to be traumatising).
5. It may have been less likely that you would survive from a wound back then (so if you were injured then you would die rather than going on to develop PTSD).
6. back then I think that they would have had a bit more us vs them mentality (viewing the enemy as subhuman barbarians dehumanises them and so stops you feeling sorry for them).
7. Soldiers were probably not required to think beyond the fight (i.e. nowadays there are more “rules” to warfare which means that soldiers are required to think about the enemy as humans).

[Megas Methuselah]

Nice post, duncan.gill! My great-grand-uncles weren't the same when they came back from the wars... :sad:

Anyways, I'd like to add that I once read somewhere of how the first PTSD of some sort was recorded in ancient Greece. Is that true?

[belliger]

you should have a look at the books from Victor Davis Hanson. the best ones.
especially 'the art of warfare in the western world'. despite its title it depicts - perfectly - the typical battle in the greek warfare, and moreovr its cultural consequences.
but also his book 'carnegie and culture' is absolutely a MASTERPIECE. you should see my copy: i read and re-read it so many times that it looks like weird.
another veeery good author is John Keegan. it writes more about the WWI and its psychological impact over the combatants, but writes also, in an unarrivable way, about ancient and medieval warfare, exactly about the matters you are looking for.
and - of course -, if you don't have done it yet, the novel by Steven Pressfield. his 'gates of fire' (about the thermopylae) is absolutely unbelievable.
:2thumbsup:
bye

[Subedei]

Paul Keegan has a very good account of ancient warfae in his book "The History of Warfare". Can´t find a quote, yet I remember on Phalanx warfare smth. like "one of the most horryfying experiences one can make".

[Watchman]

I find it interesting that the first time (AFAIK) that combat fatigue/PTSD became a major issue was around WW1.
3. In antiquity then the actual battles were much shorter and so they weren’t exposed to long periods of stress (e.g. battles that go on for weeks) except in the case of sieges.I would figure #3 is the main reason for the previous; WW1 was the first of the truly modern wars that just went on and on and on, exposing the soldiers to an endless barrage of fear and stress.

Well, the effects of essentially modern weaponry being for the first time unleashed in full on human beings at a large scale cannot really have helped...

[antisocialmunky]

Well, for the first large scale truly mondern war, I would nominate the end of the American Civil War. It basically transitions from classic Napoleonic warfare to static trench systems, tunnelling, and massive artillery barrages that are seen in WWI. The only thing you didn't have were machine guns everywhere.

[Watchman]

That was only the sieges, though, wasn't it ? In that respect for example the Crimean War or some phases of the Franco-Prussian War were little different - and arguably siege warfare in general had only changed in its technological aspects (and scale, as armies and fortresses alike grew ever larger) during the past millenia or so...

[antisocialmunky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor#June_3

Well there was this instance of the Confederate Army using prepared positions and trenchworks rather than attempting a set piece battle of maneuver.

Its hard to define modern warfare if you're talking about tactics as I was. You could define it in terms of scale, absoluteness, and scope I guess. Then modern warfare would probably have started during the Napoleonic Wars.

[Watchman]

The use of fieldworks and -fortifications to reinforce a defensive position was hardly anything new, though. Merely to mention a few instances that spring to mind, in the Battle of Poltava in 1709 the Swedes had to advance through a chain of small fortlets the Russians had set up to cover the approach to the open plain before their main fortified camp; where possible artillery batteries had been "dug in" behind fieldworks (and were often inordinately difficult to overrun) whenever possible since gunpowder field artillery began to see use, and several major Napoleonic battles involved heavy fighting over sometimes quite major field-works...

[Callicles]

Check out the Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson. It is exactly what you are looking for.

[Watchman]

:inquisitive: I find the title somewhat dodgy.

[Ibrahim]

:inquisitive: I find the title somewhat dodgy.

why is that?

[Watchman]

Let's just say that I have bad experiences with people going on about "the Western way of war" like there had actually been one before approximately the late 1500s or so, and it was the most awesome thing in the world... not sure if Hanson's book is related, but it rather suspiciously sounds to be.

[antisocialmunky]

Can't hurt to look into it the next time you're at a library. Only cost you like 3 minutes.

[Callicles]

Victor Davis Hanson is probably the leading academic on Classical warfare, and probably also the most reputable classicist in the United States. His book, The Western Way of War is an in depth examination of hoplite battle, especially from the perspective of regular soldiers (not generals).

Most of Hanson's work is on the hoplite experience, but it is likely still instructive for classical warfare generally.

[antisocialmunky]

Wait, he's not the guy who constructed a full period hoplite kit and ran the beach at Marathon is he?

[Callicles]

I don't think so. I didn't know someone did that.

[Watchman]

I went and did some reading on this Hanson fellow, and what I found seemed like some distinctly dodgy theses indeed. Which does not surprise me, as he indeed seems to have been the inspiration of some of the more odious Classicist-supremacist rants I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with in the past.

Those of you who recognise the nick SigniferOne will probably know what I'm talking about.

[Cybvep]

Well, Classical Greeks were great and all, but their lack of centralization and overconfidence in tradition were no match both for fresh, innovative Macedonian troops and flexible Roman army. Then, both Macedonian phalanx and Roman legion had some crushing defeats and there can be no talking about supremacy of one style of fighting.

We MIGHT say that discipline and organization were generally favoured during the history or that nukes are supreme to all, but IMO, it is all just ranting about things some of us want to believe, but will never be universal. There was not and probably will not ever be one, uber and almighty style of fighting.

An interesting thing to consider is the course of changes that are taking place in warfare in general. It seems that it is becoming more and more depersonalised and quicker. For me, it seems almost impossible to imagine massive battles in the style of antiquity in modern world, with mighty clash of two big armies, ruthless, fierce close combat in incredibly tight formation, with thousands of people yelling and hundreds of bodies lying around. People have changed too much in their mentality. But, as some of you have already said, modern warfare would probably be unimaginable for people of antiquity. We, however, have tha advantage of knowledge of the past...

[Callicles]

I went and did some reading on this Hanson fellow, and what I found seemed like some distinctly dodgy theses indeed. Which does not surprise me, as he indeed seems to have been the inspiration of some of the more odious Classicist-supremacist rants I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with in the past.

Those of you who recognise the nick SigniferOne will probably know what I'm talking about.

That may be. I've read many of his books and I question many of his conclusions. But his writing is interesting and well researched. If you have a chance you should check it out. The first book I read by him was A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

[Gleemonex]

and - of course -, if you don't have done it yet, the novel by Steven Pressfield. his 'gates of fire' (about the thermopylae) is absolutely unbelievable.
:2thumbsup:
bye

Good post and good suggestions (overall). But I have to take issue with "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield.

I was so excited when I heard about this book -- I find the premise extremely enticing. But when I read the sample on his site, I could have sworn he had stolen the cast of Full Metal Jacket and dropped them into Ancient Greece. All the "chow" and "hooah" and bitching and moaning were straight out of Vietnam Flicks 101. Even as a modern Canadian I found it jarring and tacky. Imagine trying to put it in the perspective of an Ancient Greek.

If someone ever translates it from "1960s Marine" into "English" (or any other actual language), let me know.

-Glee

[Dutchhoplite]

His book on Alexander's campaign in Afghanistan suffers from the same with the Macedonians calling themselves "Maks".

And i want to mention the last book of the "Gallic wars". Aulus Hirtius added an eighth book to Caesars work and he's unable or unwilling to hide the atrocities and less than glorious actions during the last phase of this war.

[mirmorix]

Also the books from Valerio Massimo Manfredi are very interesting. I have trilogy about Alex the Great and Tyrant /i dont know if its true name of this book in english/ - its about life od Dionysius I. who fight for whole life against Qarthadast in Sicily.

[Dutchhoplite]

Dionysius I of Syracuse ;)

[Tyrfingr]

I used to know a guy who fled the terrors of Rwanda during the mid 90s and his stories and experiences...well, they're not meant for mortal ears and minds. Hand to hand fighting with large machetes, gang rapes and slaughtering of civilians...I guess warfare of the ancient were much alike.

This guy, he had killed too...lots of people, just for being of the wrong tribe.

[Mulceber]

Losses were also very small - 1 to 10% for the winner and to 20% for looser. I was shocked when I found out that in the Napoleonic period losses for the winner could be as high as 50%! And differences between winner and looser losses were often rather small.

I'd say it depends on who was fighting - if you read de bello gallico, I very much doubt the Gauls were losing only 20% those times they were beaten by Caesar - probably 60% at a minimum. But I agree that in general, casualties were lower.

It also probably helped that the weapons they were using didn't turn the terrain into a blasted waste land. I mean, even as all this horror's going on, the ancient warrior can still look at the horizon and see green hills, if he walks a few hundred yards he gets a way from the carnage and there's at least nature there to calm him down a bit. Modern warriors? not so much. The artillery and weapons of both World Wars tended to lay waste to everything within sight, so that no matter where a soldier looks, they'd be surrounded by death. -M

[antisocialmunky]

I used to know a guy who fled the terrors of Rwanda during the mid 90s and his stories and experiences...well, they're not meant for mortal ears and minds. Hand to hand fighting with large machetes, gang rapes and slaughtering of civilians...I guess warfare of the ancient were much alike.

This guy, he had killed too...lots of people, just for being of the wrong tribe.

Ancient Feuds exacerbated by Imperialism and played on by the Politicians....

War, war never changes.:shame:

[Megas Methuselah]

I'd say it depends on who was fighting - if you read de bello gallico, I very much doubt the Gauls were losing only 20% those times they were beaten by Caesar - probably 60% at a minimum. But I agree that in general, casualties were lower.

I don't particularly enjoy treading on territory which isn't quite within the limits of my own personal expertise, but isn't De Bello Gallico somewhat... biased?

[Watchman]

Ancient Feuds exacerbated by Imperialism and played on by the Politicians....Ancient and ancient. Usually no older than the colonial rule.

[Macilrille]

It is nteresting though that only in the middle of the 2nd century BC did the Romans face their first derth of volunteers for service in the legions. Except for the 2nd Punic war when everybody available was drafted.

Brunt and Harris has some insights on this.

I might add some personal one of slight use.

Rousing speeches work.

As some of you might know, I am a Viking Fighting Re-enactor,
unlike SCA we fight with steel weapons, blunt copies of what
our ancestors use. And we fight in a highly organised system,
cause it is quite dangerous;-)

At Moesgaard south of Aarhus, Denmark, every year around 350
of us from all over the world meet to train for a week and
conclude the week with 4 big Line Fights during the weekend
where both sides go to the field to win, with a tactic,
reserves, detailed plans, high organisation... basically this
is the closest thing you will get to a real fight of the
sorts, and often dangerous. Last year a German fighter had a
sword penetrate the eye socket and 2-2.5 Cm into his brain
:-(

But, before we go on we have the rousing speech, being a
tactician and organiser of our own group group I have
sometimes given it, more often recieved it and I tell you it
WORKS! A good orator can whip up a sentiment so strong that
when combined with your hunger to beat the enemy, the
adrenaline and training it puts your blood on fire,
literally, your heart pounds, you blood race, you roar with
bloodlust at appropriate moments with your brothers-in-arms.
We would go out there and fight even were it life or death.
The fear comes when you stand there in line looking at the
opponents, then you look left and right at your mates and
seeks confidence- and in my case continue to whip them up.

Conclusion is, at least in what we do, battle rhetorics in
rousing speeches work. If you add to that a general warlike mentality, more familiarity with death and perhaps some hatred of your enemy, you will fight and afterwards you will be happy to have survived, while most of the time in battle you will not think too much, just fight on reflexes..

An interesting perspective is Egil Skallagrimsson's Saga, he was a psycho, yet thrived and was hailed as a hero...

[Macilrille]

Oh and BTW, I do not know the name of the Californian scholar putting athletes in Hoplite armour and letting them fight, concluding that as they were exhausted in 45 mins, no battle in Greece can have lasted much more (I heard of this experiemnt on the H-War list from another scholar).
But though interesting in theory, the experiement is of no practical value. It is all about training what you do, I have seen athletes joining our fighting and get exhausted very fast until in a year or two they had the right condition for fighting with our kit. Interesting the ones best suited for it from start are carpenters, masons etc.

Suffice it to say, if you are trained well and know what you do, you can fight for hours. Though not in the FULL-ON style Hollywood depicts or we do in our show-fights for audiences. You have to pace yourself...

[Macilrille]

Back on topic I just saw Rome for the first time, it is not too bad in fact despite many ahistoricities it does give the general gist of the root cause of the downfall of the republic (which I have outlined here https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2122423#post2122423 ). In the first episode after their skirmish with the captors of Octavian Pullo bashes somebody to pieces to get some gold (possibly teeth? I watched a bad online streamed version), just as some scavenger later cuts off Brutus' ring (nevermind that the Phillipi depiction is quite ahistorical), there you have it. The face of warfare post-battle.

[Shigawire]

I think it's funny how the thread mutated from "The horror of ancient warfare" into "The horror of poop."

[Macilrille]

I am puzzled, who is talking poop? Or am I missing a subtle humoristic hint?

[desert]

Check the beginning of the thread.

[Macilrille]

Ha ha ha, yes and the guilty party is YOU!! ;-)

[desert]

Don't forget the smell of feces. Lots and lots of feces.

TBH, that's the one thing I hate about ancient warfare. All the dead men with feces in their underwear and around their abdominal wounds. Smells really bad.

What? It's true, you know.

Also, an army that has been marching for a long time will probably have "the honey of unwashed anuses" mixed in with its general smell (it makes me feel sorry for the guys who have to climb the ladders).

[Mulceber]

I don't particularly enjoy treading on territory which isn't quite within the limits of my own personal expertise, but isn't De Bello Gallico somewhat... biased?

Somewhat, but from what I understand, Caesar wasn't biased in that way - he might try to disguise his motives in his writing (particularly in de bello civile, when he had to defend his choice to go to war with the senate), but from what we understand, his description of what actually HAPPENED is dead on. So I'd say he's a credible source for these purposes. -M

Ps. don't worry about treading outside your own personal expertise, I do it a fair bit myself. Only means you learn something new. ~;)

[Megas Methuselah]

Really? I suppose that explains why it's always taken as a credible source, a fact which always puzzled me.

Caesar was a great man. On every fifteenth day of March, I take the liberty of wearing a makeshift laurel wreath in his honour.

[Ludens]

Caesar's army contained many prominent Romans that would be in correspondence with home, so the senate would have a pretty good idea of what was going in Gaul. In fact, I recall that Cicero in of his speeches demonstrated a detailed and very up-to-date knowledge of the events that beset an army operating in cis-Alpine Gaul, although this may not have been the norm. The point is though that Caesar was not beyond easy communication in Gaul, and could not have made up his own stories without the home-front finding out. Hence his account had to be accurate. On the other hand, it's unlikely that his own officers would have spoken out if Caesar made them look good, so we should not take his story as gospel truth either.

[Macilrille]

Cicero's brother served with Caesar in gaul, I think as Tribune of the 10th legion that was caesar's favorite, so Cicero would have a good picture indeed of happenings there.