09-05-2016, 08:46 AM
my few lines on this topic:
Human Psychology is the same, it doesn't changes just because society values life less or more. Every single normal human being is not suicidal,and would struggle against dangers where he could possible lose life. His instincts would kick in and would try to survive, its coded into our DNA..
for example whole drowning happens only after several minutes of actual drowning. Human body disables certain functions to preserve the oxygen for vital organs. Thats why deep sea divers always go down at least in pair with a guys with a full diving set, so when they lose consciousness he can get them up.
but back to combat psychology - large majority of men would not put themselves into danger. Of course, as in any society, there would be a certain percentage of men who are psychologically "changed" and would actually seek direct danger, but that's not what the average human would do. Average soldier would look at his own protection, hitting and killing an enemy in close combat would be his last concern, and he would only do that if he is sure with own safety. Plus, a large amount of population would be practically "cowards" who would just turn and run once in vicinity of danger.
So actual close combat would be a clash of two groups of men, where everybody tries to keep himself at distance from the danger, and strike from protected position, while on both sides there would be few "brave" who would actually fight to kill, not looking for own safety. Yet, if one group gets into slightly disadvantageous position, those cowardly would just turn and run away, while others, knowing they don't have anybody backing them would have no choice but run as well..
Personally, i like the work of Alexander Zhmodikov on this topic, who suggested that Roman Legionarii didn't only use their pila at the charge, but actually used them continuously during entire battle. Units clashed for few minutes, then separated, reorganized, and clashed again, and javelins were quite ideal weapon to reach not so distant enemy before another clash. Battles therefore were practically a sum of multiple luls and clashes on the battlefield, with relatively low losses from direct fighting, until one side's morale broke. Typically, there was about 5% casualties taken from direct fighting, which was usually same on both sides, then when rout happened, routing side was just decimated by the victors, creating those huge casualties we are reading about..
Human Psychology is also main reason why i dont buy the teories about Hoplite pushing matches. Soldiers in front would really hate to be pushed towards the enemy while they are fighting them.. to fight, you need space, but if you are pushed in the back from behind, your own men are denying you the space to fight effectively, which would just create a rout much easily
Human Psychology is the same, it doesn't changes just because society values life less or more. Every single normal human being is not suicidal,and would struggle against dangers where he could possible lose life. His instincts would kick in and would try to survive, its coded into our DNA..
for example whole drowning happens only after several minutes of actual drowning. Human body disables certain functions to preserve the oxygen for vital organs. Thats why deep sea divers always go down at least in pair with a guys with a full diving set, so when they lose consciousness he can get them up.
but back to combat psychology - large majority of men would not put themselves into danger. Of course, as in any society, there would be a certain percentage of men who are psychologically "changed" and would actually seek direct danger, but that's not what the average human would do. Average soldier would look at his own protection, hitting and killing an enemy in close combat would be his last concern, and he would only do that if he is sure with own safety. Plus, a large amount of population would be practically "cowards" who would just turn and run once in vicinity of danger.
So actual close combat would be a clash of two groups of men, where everybody tries to keep himself at distance from the danger, and strike from protected position, while on both sides there would be few "brave" who would actually fight to kill, not looking for own safety. Yet, if one group gets into slightly disadvantageous position, those cowardly would just turn and run away, while others, knowing they don't have anybody backing them would have no choice but run as well..
Personally, i like the work of Alexander Zhmodikov on this topic, who suggested that Roman Legionarii didn't only use their pila at the charge, but actually used them continuously during entire battle. Units clashed for few minutes, then separated, reorganized, and clashed again, and javelins were quite ideal weapon to reach not so distant enemy before another clash. Battles therefore were practically a sum of multiple luls and clashes on the battlefield, with relatively low losses from direct fighting, until one side's morale broke. Typically, there was about 5% casualties taken from direct fighting, which was usually same on both sides, then when rout happened, routing side was just decimated by the victors, creating those huge casualties we are reading about..
Human Psychology is also main reason why i dont buy the teories about Hoplite pushing matches. Soldiers in front would really hate to be pushed towards the enemy while they are fighting them.. to fight, you need space, but if you are pushed in the back from behind, your own men are denying you the space to fight effectively, which would just create a rout much easily
Jaroslav Jakubov
