08-04-2003, 08:09 PM
Quote:</em></strong><hr>But to a professional soldier it's not. Fear is good, it keeps you from doing something stupid. I don't think any Japanese in WW2 gained tactical advantage due to being "unafriad of death". Actually it's not being "unafraid of death" it's being afraid of showing fear to comrades or superiors that is the real core issue here. Being unafraid of death is just how most "mask" the real issue. But regardless how it is packaged, lack of fear without skill or profficiency is just a way to get many killed quickly.<hr><br>
<br>
I disagree. Fear means hesitation and when you are in a melee situation, hesitation of even a milisecond can mean death. Look at the cultures that embrace an eternity in an afterlife if you die a good death/ die with weapon in hand/ die in struggle, etc. Death is accepted as due course. There are a lot of writings about the Vandals in the early 5th century (and later )being the most fearsome due to their certain acceptance and will do die in combat.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>"And from my own experience, being aggressive can be an advantage against someone with more skill and training." Actually this in itself is a loaded issue. I would tend to lean towards skill and training. Aggression without skill and control just gets you killed faster. Proffesional soldiers are more than capable of generating aggression and violence and mastering the psycological aspects of combat, most importantly fear management. All the little "rituals", personal or organizational, that good units go through before combat bring them to this point. <hr><br>
<br>
I have trained in martial arts (eastern for 7 years, SCA for 14 years) and have been an infantryman for 5 years. In hand-to-hand, even a trained soldier, when faced by an extremely aggressive combatant is placed on the defensive. Sometimes the well-trained guy can take out the aggressor. A lot of the time, the best chance a less-skilled guy has is to be as aggressive as possible and force the more-skilled guy on the defensive. (with me so far?) Sometimes, the more-skilled guy will snot the less-skilled aggressor out of hand, but sometimes not.<br>
<br>
Now make one of the two (the aggressive, less-skilled one) willing to die in battle in order to secure an afterlife of wine, woman and song. This one is trained to fight as an individual, and generally uses a longer ranged weapon (say a spatha-type weapon).<br>
<br>
Now make the other (the less-aggressive, disciplined one) who is trained in simple, tactics one-on-one, but is largely trained to be a part of a team. make him believe that upon his death it is all over, so he fears dying. Say he uses a gladius or even a spatha (even up the odds a little).<br>
<br>
My money would be on the barbarian probably 75% of the time.<br>
<br>
In a group fight, i'd back the romani all the way, but one-on-one...<br>
Nope.<br>
<br>
Of course, this is all conjecture and opinion, kinda like Darth Vader versus Darth Maul.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Germanicus<br>
<br>
<p>================<br>
"Self-Pity"<br>
I never saw a wild thing<br>
sorry for itself.<br>
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough<br>
without ever having felt sorry for itself.<br>
<br>
D. H. Lawrence<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
<br>
I disagree. Fear means hesitation and when you are in a melee situation, hesitation of even a milisecond can mean death. Look at the cultures that embrace an eternity in an afterlife if you die a good death/ die with weapon in hand/ die in struggle, etc. Death is accepted as due course. There are a lot of writings about the Vandals in the early 5th century (and later )being the most fearsome due to their certain acceptance and will do die in combat.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>"And from my own experience, being aggressive can be an advantage against someone with more skill and training." Actually this in itself is a loaded issue. I would tend to lean towards skill and training. Aggression without skill and control just gets you killed faster. Proffesional soldiers are more than capable of generating aggression and violence and mastering the psycological aspects of combat, most importantly fear management. All the little "rituals", personal or organizational, that good units go through before combat bring them to this point. <hr><br>
<br>
I have trained in martial arts (eastern for 7 years, SCA for 14 years) and have been an infantryman for 5 years. In hand-to-hand, even a trained soldier, when faced by an extremely aggressive combatant is placed on the defensive. Sometimes the well-trained guy can take out the aggressor. A lot of the time, the best chance a less-skilled guy has is to be as aggressive as possible and force the more-skilled guy on the defensive. (with me so far?) Sometimes, the more-skilled guy will snot the less-skilled aggressor out of hand, but sometimes not.<br>
<br>
Now make one of the two (the aggressive, less-skilled one) willing to die in battle in order to secure an afterlife of wine, woman and song. This one is trained to fight as an individual, and generally uses a longer ranged weapon (say a spatha-type weapon).<br>
<br>
Now make the other (the less-aggressive, disciplined one) who is trained in simple, tactics one-on-one, but is largely trained to be a part of a team. make him believe that upon his death it is all over, so he fears dying. Say he uses a gladius or even a spatha (even up the odds a little).<br>
<br>
My money would be on the barbarian probably 75% of the time.<br>
<br>
In a group fight, i'd back the romani all the way, but one-on-one...<br>
Nope.<br>
<br>
Of course, this is all conjecture and opinion, kinda like Darth Vader versus Darth Maul.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Germanicus<br>
<br>
<p>================<br>
"Self-Pity"<br>
I never saw a wild thing<br>
sorry for itself.<br>
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough<br>
without ever having felt sorry for itself.<br>
<br>
D. H. Lawrence<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>
