7 ms·

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 c

• nradov 5y ago
  The Napoleonic wars were full of massive charges, and long violent sieges against fortresses. Armies figured out how to instill enough discipline into soldiers to march straight into enemy fire. Casualties in the front ranks of the French army at Waterloo were horrific, yet they still kept attacking all day long. "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." -Napoleon Bonaparte
  • pradn 5y ago
    Exactly, this is my point. Napoleon's professional standing armies are a relatively recent (~200 years) and exceptional compared to the historical norm. Even Napoleon was able to take lots of territory by just negotiating with actors who knew they had no chance. People don't want to just go die; this requires a large amount of training. Not wanting to kill someone is something like a universal.
    • tasogare 5y ago
      I agree about the not wanting to die but "Not wanting to kill someone is something like a universal." is clearly wrong in a lot of cultures. And ignoring this fact is precisely what lead to some recent military disasters as well as bloodshed within Europe.
    • DenisM 5y ago
      Rome had professional standing armies more than 2000 years ago.
      • pradn 5y ago
        You are absolutely right, my mistake. None-the-less, professional standing armies didn't exist in most locales for most of history.
        • ethbr0 5y ago
          Most locales for most of history couldn't afford standing armies. And not even from a financial standpoint -- there simply wasn't enough excess goods or food to have them out of the workforce.
          • pradn 5y ago
            Yes, that's true. A war machine requires surplus value. One reason why feudalism developed in Europe was for mounted warriors to be able to supply their warhorses. Facing constant violence, only super-appropriation of peasant surplus could give local lords and warriors enough resources to hold their own. And much of the success of many of the empires of history lies in their ability to requisition surplus value and use it to hire enough military labor. Rome could muster more soldiers than Carthage, for example.
      • jessaustin 5y ago
        Many centuries passed during which there were no armies with the qualities that those of Rome shared with those of Napoleon.
  • MichaelGroves 5y ago
    Wellington used to say that the presence of Napoleon on a battlefield was worth forty thousand men. Partly due to Napoleon's tactical skill I'm sure, but I think this also speaks to Napoleon's unusual ability to motivate men. They didn't want to disappoint Napoleon so they were more willing to throw their own lives away. I think the defection of the Fifth Infantry Regiment at Grenoble probably corroborates this. There, they had the opportunity to shoot Napoleon dead and slaughter his rag tag forces but instead they chose to join him.
    • crazy_horse 5y ago
      It speaks to the power of belief in something. Napoleon represented something bigger than a person, he was French nationalism. I think a similar story (this is in Ken Burn's doc, told by Shelby Foote) is when the Union forces at Fredericksburg took the city and then sent wave after wave of soldiers at the Confederate held hills with a wall at the base of them. I don't recall how many waves it was (10+), but it's difficult to imagine being in the sixth or seventh wave, watch man after man before you walk into a "wall of lead" and decide to do it anyway. How many people today have that kind of conviction? We can't get people to wear masks.
      • fladrif 5y ago
        Oh but interestingly isn't that a kind of conviction itself? They've been fed some kind of idea of 'freedom' that they now strongly adhere to until death (I assume a lot of anti-mask are also anti-vaccine and are now the ones dying in the hospitals). If you look at American politics over the past 5 years, trump has almost become another napoleon in how fervent the support he has, and how the idea of 'freedom' has held.
        • glofish 5y ago
          Excellent point, arguably NOT wearing a mask takes a lot more conviction than wearing it. if you believe wearing a mask benefits you then there is no need for "conviction", it is just a belief and the person is trying to maximize their own benefit
  • AniseAbyss 5y ago
    You get a lot of globalist shills here but the reality is that nationalism is a powerful force. You can see that in Afghanistan: the Dutch embassy staff waved goodbye to the plebeians down on the Kabul airport when their military flight took off. Being a citizen of a country matters and it is worth fighting for.
  • simonsarris 5y ago
    Minor but annoying: Napoleon didn't say that and didn't mean it like that. When introducing the Légion d’Honneur (open to civilians too), the first introduction of an honor since the French Revolution, some on the left complained that this reintroduction violated the revolutionary concept of social equality. In 1802 when discussing the creation of it, Théophile Berlier sneered at the concept as merely baubles, and Napoleon replied: "You tell me that class distinctions are baubles used by monarchs, I defy you to show me a republic, ancient or modern, in which distinctions have not existed. You call these medals and ribbons baubles; well, it is with such baubles that men are led. I would not say this in public, but in a assembly of wise statesmen it should be said. I don't think that the French love liberty and equality: the French are not changed by ten years of revolution: they are what the Gauls were, fierce and fickle. They have one feeling: honour. We must nourish that feeling. The people clamour for distinction. See how the crowd is awed by the medals and orders worn by foreign diplomats. We must recreate these distinctions. There has been too much tearing down; we must rebuild. A government exists, yes and power, but the nation itself - what is it? Scattered grains of sand." He went on that in order to ameliorate that sand, "We must plant a few masses of granite as anchors in the soil of France." His phrase "it is with such baubles that men are led" (and your paraphrase) are often quoted out of context as something cynical, but Napoleon was actually commending these things as the physical manifestations of honor. If he's cynical about something, it's the liberty and equality bits.
    • dwohnitmok 5y ago
      That is a fascinating quote. The original if anyone else is curious appears to be from here: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Rfl9mwoQBzkC/page/n93/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Rfl9mwoQBzkC/page/n93/mod... The line after "We must plant a few masses of granite as anchors in the soil of France" ("Nous sommes maîtres de la faire , mais nous ne l’avons pas, et nous ne l’aurons pas, si nous ne jetons pas, sur le sol de la France, quelques masses de granit.") is perhaps an even more cynical take in light of the French Revolution that directly preceded Napoleon's rise. > Croyez-vous qu’il faille compter sur le peuple? Il crie indifféremment Vive le roi, vive la ligue! Il faut donc lui donner une direction, et avoir pour cela des instruments.
• acjohnson55 5y ago
  It's one of the things that made the First Crusade so remarkable. Once the Crusaders were in way over their heads, it paradoxically made them far more committed than the warlords they were fighting against. The invaders were nowhere near hospitable lands, fighting for their lives.
  • crazy_horse 5y ago
    It helps when you have guys that are so convinced that they have found the lance that pierced the side of Christ that they are willing to walk through fire to prove it.
  • YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    Sorry to nitpick, but I wouldn't call the caliphs, sultans, emirs and kings of the muslim world of the 1090's "warlords". Even the Seljuks had essentially ceased being nomads by that time and had settled down.
    • acjohnson55 5y ago
      From the Wikipedia article on the Seljuks: "Alp Arslan authorized his Turkmen generals to carve their own principalities out of formerly Byzantine Anatolia, as atabegs loyal to him. Within two years the Turkmens had established control as far as the Aegean Sea under numerous beghliks (modern Turkish beyliks): the Saltukids in Northeastern Anatolia, the Shah-Armens and the Mengujekids in Eastern Anatolia, Artuqids in Southeastern Anatolia, Danishmendis in Central Anatolia, Rum Seljuks (Beghlik of Suleyman, which later moved to Central Anatolia) in Western Anatolia, and the Beylik of Tzachas of Smyrna in İzmir (Smyrna)." I'm def not an expert, but this seems to match my understanding that at least in the recently lost Byzantine lands in Anatolia and northern Syria, it was more of a warlord situation than conquering through a centralized state. To be fair, this is pretty similar to pre-Manzikert Byzantine Anatolia or the Western Europe the crusaders hailed from. My point is that as the Crusaders conquered their way through the Near East, they weren't facing a single Islamic empire, but different local rulers, who weren't always coordinating.
      • 5y ago
• YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  >> 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.
  • morpheos137 5y ago
    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 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).
• kamaal 5y ago
  You mention a lot of points about Indian history. Most are right. One big factor in these things was the Caste system. With regards to the Mughals or other Central Asian cultures that ruled India. Most people in Geographical India just didn't feel the need to fight. Plus Mughals really intermarried and mixed with the local populace. Atal Bihari Vajpayee(Former Prime Minister of India) said at one point in several key wars, there were more people sitting on the hills watching battles than actually participate in them. Most of it has to do with the Caste system barring participation, but the general point stands. A large section of people don't mind any political master ruling them as long as they are allowed to live in peace. This is why a general amnesty and treating local populations with respect, and just letting them be goes a long way in establishing your legitimacy over them. In many cases when the political systems bought by an invading political force is better than existing political entity ruling them. Taxes are lower and they bring better ideas. In the case of India's independence. Watching movies and reading popular stories feels like the Independence movement was in peak intensity everywhere. In reality only major urban centers, and a few states saw these peak movements. Everywhere else it was business as usual. In states like Karnataka post the original wars between the Mysore Kingdoms and British, you barely hear any other stories. Even in the those wars, post defeat, the administration of Mysore Kingdoms moved in their entirety to British administrated political systems. The local public didn't really mind anything at all. >>Aside from all this, contrary to some sort of received chivalric ideal of loyalty and fighting-unto-death, a great number of military engagements in every part of the world were decided by bribery and deception. People don't want to risk their lives and are often tempted by monetary gain. Countless forts have fallen to people opening the doors from within. There's instances of Sufi leaders being admitted into forts only to open the gates. Hyderabad was conquered by Aurangazeb in great part due to bribery, too. Yup this is what happened in Mysore Kingdom. It is easy to label this treason or whatever. But people like Purnaiah and Mir Sadiq quite literally took money and made the British victory happen. Same thing happened in Bengal with Mir Jafar.
  • pradn 5y ago
    The success of a military system comes from it being able to muster strength in numbers, train and equip them appropriately. And all this depends on the economic system underneath. A European feudal monarch might only have a few thousand men under his direct command, with the rest coming from levies from his vassals. This limits the amount of strength one person can hold on a battlefield, though the issue of lower-level leaders is already solved (this problem will always be present.) Compare this to nation-states being able to field massive armies under the control of one person. In the same way, not being able to take advantage of all of the people in a society is a problem too. I am unsure to what effect caste inflected military participation. I doubt it was ever so strict as to prevent farmers from taking up arms. I'm unsure how many peasant rebellions happened in India, relative to other areas. China certainly had many. AFAIK, for much of Indian history there was more land than people to till it, so lords had to be careful to induce them to stay, lest they run away to better areas, with lower taxation and such.
• LeanderK 5y ago
  >> Battles have rarely been massive charges from two sides of a flat battlefield, as we see in war movies. Except e.g. WW1, which was just waves of senseless charging into machine-guns. It's hard to convince soldiers to charge into almost certain death but in war on an industrial scale (to which I would also count the napoleonic wars) it's possible. War can be unbelievable cruel, just compare the practice of decimating your army in roman times. You just kill every tenth soldier of your own army, because an army nine tenth its size that follows your orders is more useful than an army in full strength that does not.
  • nicbou 5y ago
    WW1 was a lot more dynamic than popular history credits it to be. Over a few years, every practice of warfare evolved to make the charge across no man's land as successful as possible, while the enemy tried its best to thwart it. Remember that this war started with cavalry charges and ended with tanks and airplanes.