Hoplites fighting in Phalanx formation

[Tarbicus]

Alexandr, I agree about self-survival not being exclusive to unit cohesion and loyalty.

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.

There's also another effect that could possibly add something to the discussion: stress. I'm looking into this more, but the sense I get is that with the extreme psychological stress that must be present if standing in a line waiting to be attacked and possibly killed or seriously injured, an individual, with no option to take flight, has little choice but to become aggressive. I don't think the modern analogy can apply here, because we're talking about ancient battle where the men had no option to hunker down under cover, except with what they carried. "Fight or flight" comes to mind. The effects of combat are complex, where the frontal brain almost shuts down and we revert to using our more primal mid brain. But, a high level of training (thinking of the Roman standing legions) can overcome the instinct to stop functioning to a degree (a comparison of firing rates during the Falklands conflict showed the British professional army to be far higher than the Argentinian mostly-conscript army, even though the former had negligible air or artillery support in comparison) and make the men act pro-actively and actually function without freezing up.

From what I can tell, here are the base instinct mammalian options for stressed individuals:

* Flight (Withdrawal from the threat)
* Fight (Defensive aggression)
* Freeze (Crouching and lying still to avoid attention)
* Appeasement (Actively submitting to the attacker)

'Freeze', is obviously not an option to a phalanx or cohort, so we're left with three options. 'Appeasement' comes at the end of a combat phase in the form of surrender, so we're now left wth two options. Compare the two options that are now left with accounts from Caesar's Gallic Wars of the mens' behaviour in battle, where the legionaries seemed to be in control of the battle at times, advancing without orders, etc. Also, when Caesar had to leave his horse, and made his tribunes do so and stand with the men to stop them from taking flight from the Helvetii (good officer material that man). And then here is a really interesting tidbit, during the battle with Ariovistus:

"Caesar appointed over each legion a lieutenant and a questor, that every one might have them as witnesses of his valour. He himself began the battle at the head of the right wing, because he had observed that part of the enemy to be the least strong. Accordingly our men, upon the signal being given, vigorously made an attack upon the enemy, and the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was no time for casting the javelins at them. Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10657/10657.txt

That doesn't sound like the odd individual acting exceptionally. Is this a case of aggression through fear and stress (the Romans had been baited for days on end before actually being able to engage the enemy in formal battle) being allowed to focus on the enemy at last?