11-15-2016, 07:20 PM
Connor McGregor is going into the fight to win, yes? He's not full of fear, scared to either hit his opponent, nor scared of being hit. Not wanting to get hit is not the same as being fearful, the latter is a physiological condition triggering biological responses that are detrimental to a professional fighters. Connor has a strong defense but he's fighting to win.
Nobody say they were scared for g*d sake.. All im saying is that soldier would not unnecessarily expose himself from cover just to hit the enemy. Instead, he would poke the enemy and look for opening. and if you watched that duel, it was exactly what McGregor did whole match.. he kept him out of reach, dodged any blows he aimed at him, and only strike when he was at clear advantage. YET big difference with combat is the simple fact they were not fighting to the death...
Spanish troops (most of them being Celtiberians) were instrumental behind the victory at Cannae. They served their purpose at Cannae, they held the much large Roman infantry without breaking, completing a complex and purposeful retreat, which allowed the Romans to advance, become encircled, and then annihilated.
Spanish troops were tool in Hannibals arms.. if he didnt had them, he would use what he had.. Celts, Italians, Libyans, whoever he had at hand.. By no means you can say Iberian troops used by Hannibal were the main deciding factor behind Cannae or Trebia..
If you choose to continue trying to explain the mindset and psychology of battle and use SLA Marshal (or Grossman) as a source then you are going to be wrong, because Marshal made assumptions, lied about his research to back it up, and set back the study for generations.
Thing is, with you, i start to have a feeling no matter what study i quote on this topic, you will find a way how to discredit it, just because it doesnt confirm your theories...
And this proves what I'm talking about, what Densus is talking about. That warriors of the ancient period could still carry large shields, fight in phalanx/shield wall type formations, and still be killing machines. Because the former doesn't contradict the latter.
And as i said many times before, actual historical sources claim relatively light casualties from direct combat, with majority of casualties happening only when one side routed... so it is quite obvious they were not all even close to the killing machine... they were still humans with human limitations, no matter how much you wanna ignore them.
and btw, its quite often quoted thing that famous generals prefer soldiers over warriors.. Napoleon for example when comparing French cavalry to mamluks said that single Mamluk is better fighter than two French cavalrymen... yet single French cavalry Squadron will defeat three Mamluks squadrons with no problem...
Nobody say they were scared for g*d sake.. All im saying is that soldier would not unnecessarily expose himself from cover just to hit the enemy. Instead, he would poke the enemy and look for opening. and if you watched that duel, it was exactly what McGregor did whole match.. he kept him out of reach, dodged any blows he aimed at him, and only strike when he was at clear advantage. YET big difference with combat is the simple fact they were not fighting to the death...
Spanish troops (most of them being Celtiberians) were instrumental behind the victory at Cannae. They served their purpose at Cannae, they held the much large Roman infantry without breaking, completing a complex and purposeful retreat, which allowed the Romans to advance, become encircled, and then annihilated.
Spanish troops were tool in Hannibals arms.. if he didnt had them, he would use what he had.. Celts, Italians, Libyans, whoever he had at hand.. By no means you can say Iberian troops used by Hannibal were the main deciding factor behind Cannae or Trebia..
If you choose to continue trying to explain the mindset and psychology of battle and use SLA Marshal (or Grossman) as a source then you are going to be wrong, because Marshal made assumptions, lied about his research to back it up, and set back the study for generations.
Thing is, with you, i start to have a feeling no matter what study i quote on this topic, you will find a way how to discredit it, just because it doesnt confirm your theories...
And this proves what I'm talking about, what Densus is talking about. That warriors of the ancient period could still carry large shields, fight in phalanx/shield wall type formations, and still be killing machines. Because the former doesn't contradict the latter.
And as i said many times before, actual historical sources claim relatively light casualties from direct combat, with majority of casualties happening only when one side routed... so it is quite obvious they were not all even close to the killing machine... they were still humans with human limitations, no matter how much you wanna ignore them.
and btw, its quite often quoted thing that famous generals prefer soldiers over warriors.. Napoleon for example when comparing French cavalry to mamluks said that single Mamluk is better fighter than two French cavalrymen... yet single French cavalry Squadron will defeat three Mamluks squadrons with no problem...
Jaroslav Jakubov
