03-05-2013, 02:44 AM
Macedon - why did you tear out of context just a small fragment of my post?
I wrote:
Also check my response regarding equipment of Medieval cavalry (last post on previous page).
=========================================
Nathan:
Surviving is not in agreement with fighting. If you escape before contact with the enemy, you have much bigger chances to survive than if you fight - even when your army is victorious.
War is undoubtedly the most suicidal activity of all existing human activities.
Being a soldier on the frontline, is the most risky of all jobs.
Maybe they were rare - but they were often able to turn the tides of battles.
Exceptional bravery was often much more important than sheer numerical superiority.
Nope. I don't agree with this statement. You know why wars did not end millennia ago?
Because people who start wars and people who fight in them are two different groups.
Politicians and governments start wars - and wars are beneficial for them.
However, soldiers fight in wars - and for vast majority of them, wars are by no means beneficial.
Only a very small fraction of all soldiers benefited from wars throughout history.
I wrote:
Quote:Regarding Carrhae:
One should ask themselves a question - why should cataphracts charge the Roman line as long as horse archers were not out of arrows (and they had 1000 pack mules loaded with arrows)?
Maybe it is not the best comparison - but for the same reason, the USA nuked Japan in 1945, rather than carrying out a seaborne invasion (but nobody doubts such an invasion was going to succeed).
The general principles of war were the same in 53 BC and 1945 - economy of force, minimizing losses.
If Parthians could win just with arrows, they didn't need to risk their lifes in close combat. If Americans could win just with nukes, they didn't need to risk another Okinawa on larger scale.
Also check my response regarding equipment of Medieval cavalry (last post on previous page).
=========================================
Nathan:
Quote:Soldiers fight in order to win, or at least to survive
Surviving is not in agreement with fighting. If you escape before contact with the enemy, you have much bigger chances to survive than if you fight - even when your army is victorious.
War is undoubtedly the most suicidal activity of all existing human activities.
Being a soldier on the frontline, is the most risky of all jobs.
Quote:there are plenty of instances throughout history of individuals making self-sacrificial attacks, but they were rare and noteworthy.
Maybe they were rare - but they were often able to turn the tides of battles.
Exceptional bravery was often much more important than sheer numerical superiority.
Quote:If it were, all war would have ended millennia ago and we would be living in perpetual peace, troubled only by a few lunatics hurling themselves to their deaths now and then...
Nope. I don't agree with this statement. You know why wars did not end millennia ago?
Because people who start wars and people who fight in them are two different groups.
Politicians and governments start wars - and wars are beneficial for them.
However, soldiers fight in wars - and for vast majority of them, wars are by no means beneficial.
Only a very small fraction of all soldiers benefited from wars throughout history.
