The horror of ancient warfare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Respenus

@ 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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf Blackeyes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novellus

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!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novellus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf Blackeyes

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...

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

@ Conan:

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

I don't like to quote myself.

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

Heck, modern people were...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf Blackeyes

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Heck, modern people were...

---

Touché. :shame:

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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribunus Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribunus Tiberius Claudius Marcellus

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.

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).

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?

you should have a look at the books from

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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 J

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ohn 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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Steven Pressfield

. his 'gates of fire' (about the thermopylae) is absolutely unbelievable.
:2thumbsup:
bye

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan.gill

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...

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.

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...