Comment by YeGoblynQueenne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by YeGoblynQueenne | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

YeGoblynQueenne

>> Battles have rarely been massive charges from two sides of a flat battlefield, as we see in war movies. Historically, it's been really hard to get soldiers to charge to their deaths, which makes sense if you think for a second. Most armies throughout history were nonprofessionals levied by their lords or seasonal opportunists, who fought for extra income. Sometimes, the leaders would get the soldiers drunk before they went in, and they'd retreat and have to be coaxed into running in again.

In some historical periods that was true. In others, not so much. The Zulu at Isandlwana were seasonal warrior-farmers, but they sure charged the British lines with their goat's hide shields and short, thrusting spears, and massacred the British despite the latters' technological superiority. Alexander's army comprised regular professional soldiers and they sure marched in a phalanx (the phalanx didn't quite charge as it was too slow moving to do so) and Alexander himself of course charged at the head of his Hetairoi. The armies of medieval feudal lords were in their majority levies, as you say, but the Crusaders, in the same time period, were for the most part elite knights who fought with unending courage (and commited incredible atrocities) against enemies many times their numbers. And so it goes.

As to bribery, sure, many battles were fought with money or politics rather than swords. Yet again others were not. Think of WWI for example, or WWII. No chivalric ideals there, but the battles were bloody and the corpses piled on high.

Btw, thanks for reminding me to read about the Khwarazmians.

> the battles were bloody and the corpses piled on high.

Quite literally at times. Guadalcanal WWII:

> Enemy bodies were (literally) piling up so rapidly that he — or other Marines, depending on the story — had to vacate their defensive positions to knock over the growing wall of flesh so they could reestablish clear fields of fire.

Conversely the phalanx was practically a superweapon of hand to hand combat against the enemies of the time. As a soldier in Alexander's army's you were in relatively little danger provided the phalanx held - this is also true of the Roman legions.

Battles for a soldier were a few minutes of danger, followed by being pulled to the back of the line to rest and recover in relative safety: which makes sense of course. Anyone who's ever tried boxing knows how exhausting it becomes very quickly.

> Anyone who's ever tried boxing knows how exhausting it becomes very quickly.

True, most people have about 30 seconds of actual fight in them, if that. You really don’t want to go to the ground with someone who does it often, you will not win.

This is true. As someone who has done a lot of sparring, I can go for a long time, but it is only because I have learned how to be perfectly relaxed. Most people tense up their whole body and stay that way. Also breathing is incredibly important. But mostly, it is keeping your body relaxed, which also relaxes the breathing. But that's extremely difficult to do, when one hasn't done it thousands of times.

"anybody" = an office worker that has spent his life behind a desk. We are talking about farmers and craftsmen that has marched on foot for years with their gear. And now days we know that even our fastest runners train 80% of theri weekely training in a low steady state traingins, the kind of conditioning that increases the heart size, lowers the resting pulse and improves your ability to work after rest.

And yet professional boxers regularly gas after 5 rounds of 3 minutes... Now add equipment, particularly armour.

Or look up a Judo match, particularly during tournaments. You can see these guys are often wrecked after a particularly long match, and typically matches last only a few minutes. Just see Judo matches in the last Olympics, guys who typically have 3 to 5 training sessions a day, 7 days a week, for 2 decades.

The Zulu warriors were supposed to be celibate. So they had plenty of pent up rage.

EDIT:

For the downvoters see

http://smu-facweb.smu.ca/~wmills/course316/9Zulu_Shaka.html

>units of unmarried females were assigned to each impi to prepare food and perform other domestic duties. However, Shaka insisted on abstinence from sexual activities among his warriors (like some football and soccer coaches today). Any woman who became pregnant, along with her lover, would be immediately put to death. Nor did Shaka allow his warriors to marry until he gave permission, which he did infrequently and only when the regiment was being retired. Then, he would order the entire regiment to marry and would specify the unit among the women that they were to marry (kind of like Rev. Moon).

They also got high as a kite before they fought.

You're right about Shaka imposing celibacy, but my understanding is that it was only Shaka that did this and subsequent ruleres let their men free to breed as they saw fit. At Isandlwana Shaka was long gone and there was no celibacy rule, as far as I know - but I may be wrong of course.

You are correct that these are all historically contingent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com