Hoplites fighting in Phalanx formation

[Tarbicus]

Whereas, actually banging your shield on your enemies, and trying to kill him with a short sword (very short, if you are a Spartan) might have the same psychological impact that bayonetting an enemy would have for an 18th century grenadier.

yes, I agree here, although I think the fight at close quarter probably wouldn't be as dreadful for heavily armoured soldiers as a bayonet fight for men without any protection for their bodies.
Greetings

I agree also to a certain degree, but I think the evidence of the beneficial effects of training to overcome fear and stress, and therefore use the weapons more effectively, is being forgotten or discounted - you can have the best handheld weapon in the world, but if you can't use it properly through fear and stress then it may as well be a chopstick. It was absolutely clear during the Falklands Conflict that the British soldiers had a far higher targeted firing rate, and overall firing rate, than the Argentinian conscripts, even though they were more exposed and out-gunned (even much of the Argentinian equipment and clothing was better). There can be little doubt that this is attributed to a better training regime for professional soldiers, as opposed to conscripts. What is it that the Roman soldier did every day, including officers?; training. Even Josephus tells us that the Romans were impressive in being able to keep formation and perform their maneouvres under almost any conditions, and he indicates this is down to training. Training is able to overcome all sorts of stress induced irrational behaviour in battle, and this, as well as unit cohesion, is also indicated in the report when applied to the Iraqi soldiers, who displayed a far higher willingness to surrender, and rarely fired their weapons in comparison to their opponents. Conscripts with poor training, no common bonds between the men, no unit cohesion, disinterested and incompetent officers, fear of their own side shooting them from the rear outweighing any motivation to attack invaders to the front. The Iraqi units that did operate more effectively tended to include those with more tribal bonds and thus unit cohesion.

Take more modern extreme situations where life and death is imminent, and one that's more serious and dangerous than combat - survival after being stranded in the wilderness (plane crash, boat sunk, etc). A simple fact that will be stressed by all survival experts is the ability to mentally keep positive is one of the most important things that will keep you alive, if not the most important. It's just a simple truth that those who can stay positive, and even display a sense of humour are far more likely to stay alive than those who don't. In groups of survivors, it's those groups who co-operate better that have the higher chance of surviving as well.

If more effective armour in ancient times is equivalent to more air and artillery support in modern times, then the Falklands Conflict demonstrates to me that better armour and arms is not the deciding factor in who wins, but that's only IMHO :wink: