Hoplites fighting in Phalanx formation

[Tarbicus]

Tarbicus, there are many examples of bravery and no care of own safety. But these are almost all exceptional deeds by exceptional men in exceptional circumstances. The historians are often describing these events in great detail, because its something extraordinary and therefore interesting for their readers. I believe the majority of men want 1. survive, 2. survive, 3. not get injured, 4. perhaps kill some enemies.

I'm not denying the instinct for survival is a strong one, but in what manner is that instinct best served? I argue that group cohesion and bonds, and the need to remain within that group and not be ostracised is the same thing. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." If you don't support your combat buddies then I dare say you won't last long in an extreme situation.

In another thread you praised du Picq for his great understanding of soldiers psyche in battle. In the first chapter, du Picq wrote: "Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second." I think these are very wise words shaped by experience, which is valid for ancient warfare too. The instinct of self-preservation does not change much in time.

I did, and I maintain that the very traits of not letting the side down, and proving yourself, amongst your peers is the best way to survive. The simple fact is that in a phalanx or maniple, or cohort, if you find yourself in the front ranks then you've had no choice in the matter; you have no control over your destiny. There are no trees to hide behind, or ditches to lie in, while bullets fly around you. It's very simple - do or die, because you're stood up facing the enemy (sometimes quite literally), and have absolutely no choice except to get stuck in. If you don't then you're dead.

Here's an interesting read on the motivations of soldiers fighting in Iraq:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... ?pubID=179
(you can save the full PDF to hard drive).
It also has many references to other studies from WW2 and Korea, which all have the common theme that group cohesion is the overriding motivation in combat.

Now, take that peer group to ancient times and what do you have? A group of men who probably have common roots by location, and also by blood. Before they even pick up their weapons they are known to each other and will also return to the same place they came from. I believe this applies also to the standing later legions, raised from certain localities and after the battle they return to the same fort or camp. A man who puts self preservation above the good of the group will be in for a very hard time when they return in any of the aforementioned circumstances. In any peer group there will always be at least one who is the bravest, most reckless, etc; a leader, the one who will make a decision to act. It is typical of a group dynamic that the one who leads will be followed, especially if he is respected for his bravery. Such an individual would also usually be the one to help in dire straits, so, it makes sense that the group would also want to protect him as part of the self-preservation instinct.

Here's another reference to duPicq,
"The human heart in the supreme moment of battle is the basic factor."

I see no conflict between self-preservation and bravery in battle.

Here's another reference from the PDF I posted, when German Wehrmacht POW's, who had fought to the bitter end even though their cause was lost, were interviewed,
"When the individual's immediate group, and its supporting formations, met his basic organic needs, offered him affection and esteem from both officers and comrades, supplied him with a sense of power and adequately regulated his relations with authority, the element of self-concern in battle, which would lead to disruption of the effective functioning of his primary group, was minimised."

Added:
Just to round of with very poignant quotes from the same report, this time from interviews with US soldiers in Iraq:

"I know that as far as myself, sir, I take my squad mates' lives more important than my own."

"That person means more to you than anybody.You will die if he dies. That is why I think that we protect each other in any situation. I know that if he dies and it was my fault, it would be worse than death to me."

And one more;

"I am the lowest ranking private on the Bradley so I am trying to kind of prove something in a way that I could do things. I did not want to let anyone down."