5 ms·

While pre-modern battlefields were certainly horrific, I wonder which is more terrifying: 1) Hand-to-hand combat where your fate is decided within a few second

While pre-modern battlefields were certainly horrific, I wonder which is more terrifying: 1) Hand-to-hand combat where your fate is decided within a few seconds but you have some control over the situation. 2) Sitting in cover while artillery shells rain down randomly around you.

burnished 4y ago
How do you reckon melee combat is finished so quickly?
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Humans with penetrating wounds to the torso don't fight much longer. Such wounds can be created with sharpened sticks (as well as a variety of slightly more advanced weapons), while preventing such wounds requires armor of complicated manufacture. Humans with concussive damage to the head tend to stop defending themselves, which also means they don't fight much longer. Such wounds can be created by anything dense, such as rocks or big sticks (as well as a variety of slightly more advanced weapons), while preventing such wounds requires very modern high-quality helmets. Once steel and higher-quality swords and polearms came along, a variety of new types of wounds became more likely, many of which also quickly led to cessation of fighting on their victims' part. Even unarmed fights are usually shorter than portrayed in popular fiction. If ancient battles lasted days, that's because they were organized to move combatants around and avoid actual combat until advantage could be taken. Melee between two groups of armed humans could be over in less than a minute. Note that the most common way for melee to cease would be for the losing side to retreat (perhaps without those of their number who had already succumbed), which is viable when ranged weapons aren't used.
- piyh 4y ago
  Watch any UFC match, then extrapolate that to the death.
  - ProjectArcturis 4y ago
    UFC would be much slower than conflict between groups of men with weapons. In a 1-on-1 situation, grappling and extended engagement become viable techniques. Anyone who tried to wrestle in the middle of a melee would have a very short lifespan.
chewz 4y ago
I have read opinion (and don't have source at hand) that as horrific as battlefields were it suited human nature well. The clashes lasted minutes (and most battles were series of clashes rather then day long non-stop combat) and even during multi day battles (like Pharsalus or Philippi) there were night breaks etc. Being in constant danger for days (like WW1 trench warfare) is more traumatizing for a human.
larsrc 4y ago
The amount of control over the situation in hand-to-hand combat is extremely limited, especially for the poorly trained fighters making up much of pre-modern armies.
- t_mann 4y ago
  You can try to back out, which was in fact extremely common, especially among the poorly trained. Soldiers in trenches couldn't even let their head protrude above the edge (to not get shot by snipers), and had to live in horrendous conditions for months.
  - larsrc 4y ago
    Yes, desertion was always a problem, but in pre-modern battles there would usually be a lot more of your people behind you, making it hard to get away. Stuck between a spear and a hard shield. http;//www.acoup.blog had some excellent posts about this recently.
- Noughmad 4y ago
  Stress is more about the feeling of control rather than actual control. And you absolutely feel more in control in close combat than when you're targeted by artillery. For a relatable example, compare driving a car to riding in a rollercoaster. Driving is more dangerous and you're not really in control of other drivers who can hit you, but you feel in control because you hold the wheel.
  - larsrc 4y ago
    Stress is a long-term thing. In close combat, you're not stressed, but terrified. The way you'd be in a car if you suddenly find yourself on the wrong side of the highway divide.
  - t_mann 4y ago
    Not sure that's a great example - roller coasters aren't thrilling because you're not in control but because you're experience crazy g-forces,... sitting on a train is pretty relaxing usually.
goodpoint 4y ago
The latter is way more terrifying because lack of agency multiplies fear. Not to mention that modern war is way, way, way more deadly.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  Yes. In pre-modern times, far more soldiers died to disease than to combat.
engineer_22 4y ago
Go test it out. Come back and report your findings.
mynameishere 4y ago
If I remember correctly the book "on killing" discusses this very question--the short answer is that hand-to-hand combat is far more terrifying because it has an innate, animalistic psychological component. To see the face of someone who wants to kill you is far more traumatic than a metal tube from the sky. That tube does not hate you. That tube won't show up in your dreams.
- hoseja 4y ago
  Those are some bold claims when vets terrified of fireworks exist.
forgetfulness 4y ago
The article claims that the former is, soldiers fled trenches where they'd have been getting shelled the moment the enemy managed to get close enough with hand to hand weapons.

burnished 4y ago

How do you reckon melee combat is finished so quickly?

jessaustin 4y ago
Humans with penetrating wounds to the torso don't fight much longer. Such wounds can be created with sharpened sticks (as well as a variety of slightly more advanced weapons), while preventing such wounds requires armor of complicated manufacture. Humans with concussive damage to the head tend to stop defending themselves, which also means they don't fight much longer. Such wounds can be created by anything dense, such as rocks or big sticks (as well as a variety of slightly more advanced weapons), while preventing such wounds requires very modern high-quality helmets. Once steel and higher-quality swords and polearms came along, a variety of new types of wounds became more likely, many of which also quickly led to cessation of fighting on their victims' part. Even unarmed fights are usually shorter than portrayed in popular fiction. If ancient battles lasted days, that's because they were organized to move combatants around and avoid actual combat until advantage could be taken. Melee between two groups of armed humans could be over in less than a minute. Note that the most common way for melee to cease would be for the losing side to retreat (perhaps without those of their number who had already succumbed), which is viable when ranged weapons aren't used.
piyh 4y ago
Watch any UFC match, then extrapolate that to the death.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  UFC would be much slower than conflict between groups of men with weapons. In a 1-on-1 situation, grappling and extended engagement become viable techniques. Anyone who tried to wrestle in the middle of a melee would have a very short lifespan.

chewz 4y ago

I have read opinion (and don't have source at hand) that as horrific as battlefields were it suited human nature well. The clashes lasted minutes (and most battles were series of clashes rather then day long non-stop combat) and even during multi day battles (like Pharsalus or Philippi) there were night breaks etc. Being in constant danger for days (like WW1 trench warfare) is more traumatizing for a human.

larsrc 4y ago

The amount of control over the situation in hand-to-hand combat is extremely limited, especially for the poorly trained fighters making up much of pre-modern armies.

t_mann 4y ago
You can try to back out, which was in fact extremely common, especially among the poorly trained. Soldiers in trenches couldn't even let their head protrude above the edge (to not get shot by snipers), and had to live in horrendous conditions for months.
- larsrc 4y ago
  Yes, desertion was always a problem, but in pre-modern battles there would usually be a lot more of your people behind you, making it hard to get away. Stuck between a spear and a hard shield. http;//www.acoup.blog had some excellent posts about this recently.
Noughmad 4y ago
Stress is more about the feeling of control rather than actual control. And you absolutely feel more in control in close combat than when you're targeted by artillery. For a relatable example, compare driving a car to riding in a rollercoaster. Driving is more dangerous and you're not really in control of other drivers who can hit you, but you feel in control because you hold the wheel.
- larsrc 4y ago
  Stress is a long-term thing. In close combat, you're not stressed, but terrified. The way you'd be in a car if you suddenly find yourself on the wrong side of the highway divide.
- t_mann 4y ago
  Not sure that's a great example - roller coasters aren't thrilling because you're not in control but because you're experience crazy g-forces,... sitting on a train is pretty relaxing usually.

goodpoint 4y ago

The latter is way more terrifying because lack of agency multiplies fear. Not to mention that modern war is way, way, way more deadly.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago
Yes. In pre-modern times, far more soldiers died to disease than to combat.

engineer_22 4y ago

Go test it out. Come back and report your findings.

mynameishere 4y ago

If I remember correctly the book "on killing" discusses this very question--the short answer is that hand-to-hand combat is far more terrifying because it has an innate, animalistic psychological component. To see the face of someone who wants to kill you is far more traumatic than a metal tube from the sky. That tube does not hate you. That tube won't show up in your dreams.

hoseja 4y ago
Those are some bold claims when vets terrified of fireworks exist.

forgetfulness 4y ago

The article claims that the former is, soldiers fled trenches where they'd have been getting shelled the moment the enemy managed to get close enough with hand to hand weapons.