Naked units?

[Mikhail Mengsk]

To enter battle naked with no protection but a circlet, sword and maybe a shield was a sign of ultimate bravery. To come back alive was a sign of ultimate prowess. Think about how you'd have to prepare yourself to do that.

Think about your enemy, how scared he'd be to see an angry Celt, 6 foot tall, completely naked, screaming, with woad paint all over him. Now think about hundreds of these guys running at you... you still haven't seen the main line of Celts too! This is just the first strike! Fear. It's a force to be reckoned with.

Is it proven that this tactic actually works in some famous (or less) battle? I'm pretty doubtful this fear-factor was so huge in battle (Romans faced gauls, germans and celts, and very very seldom lost), i think the naked-fighting was more about a sign of bravery used in Celtic society to grow in prestige.

I think a lot of people around here discount the element of fear. Though I've never been under fire, or in combat, I've been privy to MANY stories, not just from Afghanistan, but older guys as well, such as Somalia, Cyprus, Bosnia. Fear is always there, and it can grab even the best of us by the balls. Some of the biggest guys my friends have seen have buckled in their boots when the RPG's start flying. I imagine there is no difference in that respect from todays battlefield and yesterdays.

I'm quite doubtful about that. In antiquity you could actually SEE the enemy and you can DO something to avoid death. You could be succesful or not, but your destiny was influenced by your skills.

Today, death come from far away. You can do nothing against an hidden sniper, or even a good aiming enemy soldier with an assault rifle. Needless to talk about any form of artillery.

I think today a soldier is MUCH more subject to fear, because he knows that he could have nothing to do to avoid death.

Fear can be a powerful ally if you can harness it. It can also be your worst enemy. Forcing an enemy, whom already sees your people as hideous monsters to bear witness to a "grotesque" and frightening shock tactic could cause a massive rout. Even if not initially, the men who've seen the display still will have that image imprinted in their skulls. Celtic warfare was heavily rooted in shock and fear tactics. Romans preferring a more modest and contained approach to warfare were horrified to see the Celts mooning them and shaking their bollocks in their face before an attack. It was all a part of how they conducted themselves in order to incite fear into the enemy. A brave or courageous man would however use this against them, using it to further dehumanize the enemy and make taking their lives all that much easier. Moral is everything in battle.


Look at the battle of the bulge, the airborne divisions were cold, tired, had no ammunition, but still held on. Despite losing many friends, they held on. They repelled assault after assault from the Germans even though their tanks rolled on them fast, but they still held... Thats because they kept together, organized and kept their moral up. Had they all been disheartened, and doubted they could survive, we'd have lost the battle of the bulge. The way we kill eachother changes, the human element never does.

I agree with that.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I think today a soldier is MUCH more subject to fear, because he knows that he could have nothing to do to avoid death.

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Both common psychological sense and a couple of books on military theory I have read stated it.

Basically, people are not afraid of what they cannot see as much as they are afraid of what they can see. Historians and psychologists often noted the strange calmness of people during the Battle of Britain. As long a certain group of people was not being bombed right that day, they seemed eerily calm whenever asked about the bombings. They simply could not comprehend that it could happen to them. Well; they could, but they still could not grasp it. Just like adolescents. They know that they can easily be killed; but yet they have an odd feeling that nothing bad will ever happen to them. Psychologists rationalised that we were not programmed evolutionary speaking, to respond to dangers from above, as we had no aerial predators.

Artillery and other long range weapons work similarly, as does the fact that people do not get murdered at close range, butchered with spears, swords, clubs, etc. Slaughter is much more sterilised today, even with the indiscriminate and often maiming nature of weapons. Getting shot simply doe not compare with being disembowelled by a seemingly utterly foreign, savage, barbarian, Gallic Swordsman. Another reason why units rout less and are more resilient nowadays.




As for naked warriors and weather, first of all, once a battle starts, even in the deepest of a winter, you are panting and sweating like swine after couple of moments of combat. The naked soldiers could take their clothing off at the last moment. Secondly, winter battles were rare, as winter campaigns were almost non-existent. "Finding a place to winter" was a common expression for a reason. Logistics was a problem back then, and due to the absence of motorized transport, it was a painfully noticeable absence. Romans had a nifty system, but really, until Napoleon (and the canned food one man invented in a competition created by Napoleon) no armies had a solid, regular, and highly organised and efficient supply system. Living off the land it was.

As for autumn and spring, some moments could be quite chilly, but forget not that one can condition himself to resist the cold. Such as Russian morzhi (walruses), to name a few. The morzhi are people who swim in the dead of the winter in freezing waters with nothing on but swimming trunks. It is not impossible, and the fact that they are moving, exercising, and not standing still, surely helps.

[K-Dogs]

Most of this thread is a horrible goldmine of double entendres.

They might have done it to impress the ladies, too, unless of course they were Gayesatae.

[georgeman51]

Most of this thread is a horrible goldmine of double entendres.

They might have done it to impress the ladies, too, unless of course they were Gayesatae.

What are Gayesatae?

[Ibrahim]

What are Gayesatae?

its a pun of Gaesatae-note the Gay-esatae.