Printable View
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_..._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.
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...
Check out the Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson. It is exactly what you are looking for.
:inquisitive: I find the title somewhat dodgy.
why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Can't hurt to look into it the next time you're at a library. Only cost you like 3 minutes.
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.
Wait, he's not the guy who constructed a full period hoplite kit and ran the beach at Marathon is he?
I don't think so. I didn't know someone did that.
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.
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Good post and good suggestions (overall). But I have to take issue with "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by belliger
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
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.
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.
Dionysius I of Syracuse ;)
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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
Ancient Feuds exacerbated by Imperialism and played on by the Politicians....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaertecken
War, war never changes.:shame:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulcebar
Ancient and ancient. Usually no older than the colonial rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
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...
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...
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/showt...23#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.
I think it's funny how the thread mutated from "The horror of ancient warfare" into "The horror of poop."
I am puzzled, who is talking poop? Or am I missing a subtle humoristic hint?
Check the beginning of the thread.
Ha ha ha, yes and the guilty party is YOU!! ;-)
What? It's true, you know.Quote:
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.
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).