04-07-2007, 08:52 AM
Hi all,
I am certainly not denying the importance of cohesion in combat. You're right, that it greatly helps the soldiers to cope with fear and stress in battle and it can make them do things, which they otherwise wouldn't do. But everything has its borders and in fact the priority of survival and the bonds to your comrades are not contradicting.
I've read one of the studies from WWII mentioned in the study from Iraq – Marshall's Men against fire. It's really very fascinating and enlightening read. What did he find out? That in combats of the WWII only ca. 15 % of American soldiers present in the fight really shot at enemies (the best fighting units had ca. 25 % of active participants). The rest was lying in some hole and did not dare to expose their noses to enemy fire. Moreover, in the 15 % (25 %) mentioned are counted also men, who did not expose themselves and only shot one or more shots somewhere in the direction of enemy lines without aiming from the relative safety of their shelters. What does it mean? More than 75 % of men in combat cared more about their lives than about killing enemies. But this doesn't prevent Marshall to stress the great value of unit cohesion in the next chapters (and the same is in du Picq). If the majority of your comrades is acting in the same way as you are, you won't be regarded as coward and you won't be outcased from your social environment! In the study of American soldiers in Iraq it was interesting to read the conclusion of Moskos about the war in Vietnam: „Interestingly, Moskos argued that the close bonds with other soldiers may be a result of self-interested concern for personal safety rather than an altruistic concern for fellow soldiers.“ And then see the parts of interviews with the soldiers, where they stress the importance that someone is watching their back: „That person means more to you than anybody. You will die if he dies.“ „It becomes almost like your guardian angel“ „Nothing can come to you without going through them first.“ etc. And the conclusion: „Once soldiers are convinced that their own personal safety will by assured by others, they feel empowered to do their job without worry.“ So again, the self-preservation seems to be the primary concern.
Of course the ancient battles were different as was the ancient society. You couldn't simply hide in some hole in a pitched battle and the values and the attitudes to combat and killing were different. So how can this be applied to ancient warfare? I think that the men were simply trying to gain as much protection from their armour and shields as possible and not to expose themselves to enemy. If they could kill or hurt their opponents without being exposed, they would certainly try, however if they had the chance, but would be vulnerable during their attack, they would probably mostly rather remain behind their shields. Only a minority of bold men did fight aggressively, without much care about their lives. What was the proportion of these bold and aggressive soldiers is another matter. I don't know. But I think they were the minority, although there also certainly were exceptions. You must also realize, that to care more about your life than about killing enemies doesn't automatically mean, that you'll fly away as soon as the fight begins or that you won't even advance to enemy. It means that during the clash you'll do your best to survive and if you have the opportunity to attack some enemies, you'll do that only if it doesn't poses greater risk for you.
Greetings
Alexandr
Quote:Here's an interesting read on the motivations of soldiers fighting in Iraq:Very interesting. Thanks for sharing, laus added.
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.
I am certainly not denying the importance of cohesion in combat. You're right, that it greatly helps the soldiers to cope with fear and stress in battle and it can make them do things, which they otherwise wouldn't do. But everything has its borders and in fact the priority of survival and the bonds to your comrades are not contradicting.
I've read one of the studies from WWII mentioned in the study from Iraq – Marshall's Men against fire. It's really very fascinating and enlightening read. What did he find out? That in combats of the WWII only ca. 15 % of American soldiers present in the fight really shot at enemies (the best fighting units had ca. 25 % of active participants). The rest was lying in some hole and did not dare to expose their noses to enemy fire. Moreover, in the 15 % (25 %) mentioned are counted also men, who did not expose themselves and only shot one or more shots somewhere in the direction of enemy lines without aiming from the relative safety of their shelters. What does it mean? More than 75 % of men in combat cared more about their lives than about killing enemies. But this doesn't prevent Marshall to stress the great value of unit cohesion in the next chapters (and the same is in du Picq). If the majority of your comrades is acting in the same way as you are, you won't be regarded as coward and you won't be outcased from your social environment! In the study of American soldiers in Iraq it was interesting to read the conclusion of Moskos about the war in Vietnam: „Interestingly, Moskos argued that the close bonds with other soldiers may be a result of self-interested concern for personal safety rather than an altruistic concern for fellow soldiers.“ And then see the parts of interviews with the soldiers, where they stress the importance that someone is watching their back: „That person means more to you than anybody. You will die if he dies.“ „It becomes almost like your guardian angel“ „Nothing can come to you without going through them first.“ etc. And the conclusion: „Once soldiers are convinced that their own personal safety will by assured by others, they feel empowered to do their job without worry.“ So again, the self-preservation seems to be the primary concern.
Of course the ancient battles were different as was the ancient society. You couldn't simply hide in some hole in a pitched battle and the values and the attitudes to combat and killing were different. So how can this be applied to ancient warfare? I think that the men were simply trying to gain as much protection from their armour and shields as possible and not to expose themselves to enemy. If they could kill or hurt their opponents without being exposed, they would certainly try, however if they had the chance, but would be vulnerable during their attack, they would probably mostly rather remain behind their shields. Only a minority of bold men did fight aggressively, without much care about their lives. What was the proportion of these bold and aggressive soldiers is another matter. I don't know. But I think they were the minority, although there also certainly were exceptions. You must also realize, that to care more about your life than about killing enemies doesn't automatically mean, that you'll fly away as soon as the fight begins or that you won't even advance to enemy. It means that during the clash you'll do your best to survive and if you have the opportunity to attack some enemies, you'll do that only if it doesn't poses greater risk for you.
Quote:Alas, the history of war doesn't support this position. Every single battle of the gunpowder age involved some people standing up and advancing into the range of the enemy's weapons, in a situation where the defenders either: could fire first, could fire and reload and refire a lot faster then moving men, and/or were not standing up in the open as targets.And the studies of this kind of combat revealed, that mostly the soldiers began to shoot from too long a distance, on which their weapons were ineffective. The reason behind this being the stress of battle, the fear and unwillingness to come nearer and expose themselves to concentrated and effective enemy fire.
Quote:Arguments against the traditional model for hoplite combat often strike me as too specialized. Yes, by selective use of the few Classical sources you can make an open order thesis look somewhat plausible. But what if you look at other, better known societies?Well, I didn't say the open order is all correct. I'm not that familiar with sources about Greek warfare to dare so. I was just explaining the main point of my first post - „every theory has its stronger points and its weaker ones“. The open order concepts have flaws. But are they „rubbish“ and „ridiculous“ as they were labelled in this discussion? No, they aren't. The traditional model also has its flaws, which its defenders often don't see or don't want to see. The famous „mass shove“ is I believe one serious of them. The new open order concepts are simply trying to propose new alternatives how to explain some aspects of Greek warfare, which the traditional model failed to explain convincingly. And many of their points are relevant and right.
Historical parallels show that dense shield walls have often been used. They show even more clearly that dense, deep pike blocks on the Macedonian model have been used. Modern reenactors can get small segments of a phalanx to work in the way the traditional model suggests. Historical parallels, and the experience of martial artists with the right skills, also support the idea that hoplite arms are not designed for open order. Thus the traditional model, while it may not be entirely correct, on the balance seems to fit the majority of the Classical evidence and that from other societies. As far as I can tell without reading it, van Wees' model does neither, but one day I shall read it and form a more conclusive opinion.
Greetings
Alexandr
