Victory in ancient battle: just don

[prr]

I have been reading a work by Ardant du Picq, a French military writer in the 1800s, who has made a very strong case for morale as being by far the most important factor in a battle (keep in mind Napoleon

[Onasander]

Ancient calvary was weak against infantry in melee. Worst thing that a pure calvary unit could face was a mixed infantry/calvary unit..... Romans did this often.

 

No.... as big of a supporter as I am of Du Picq.... no. Morale can win a battle, but it has its faults, in that it is a behavior hard to condition, yet easy to exploit once the cyto-architecture of the brain is known..... its much easier to trigger a cascade to panic, fear, paranoia, distress, or confusion than clear purpose and high morale.

 

Its because of all the options of psychology, high morale is a behavior that is the most fickle...... in a Bishop Berkley sense..... it runs all off of pleasurable stimuli. All pain gets recycled at best as masochism or even sadism...... at worst, well, your post high lights it.

 

The stimuli excites neuro chemicals. Its the high morale..... but this can fluxtuate and decrease over time. Individuals respond on a personality basis (personality typology is usually based on neural chemical balances in each individual..... in my case testosterone and seritonin)..... you get the balance off slightly at a crucial point in the formation, it can have ripple effects. Very fast ones.

 

The Chinese classics used fear of death to their advantage..... some going so far as to put their troops in a impossible to win situation with no way out..... if there was a a way out, they would block off the way of retreat so the men would be forced to fight to the death.

 

How much morale do you think kamikaze pilots had? Best of luck getting me to shave the morning of my last flight. Everything done around kamikaze pilots was highly programmable and ritualistic..... all in the hopes that some would carry through in the task. Even then, commanders took pragmatic assurances...... chaining them to the cock pit and giving just enough fuel one way.. All in the hope they would figure if they had to die, might as well die taking out the enemy anyway.

 

Me, Id probably take off, flip around immediately and ram my propellers up the HQ building that thought my suicide run up in the first place.If I gotta die, Im taking out the sickos who drafted me and assigned me to die without the possibility of surviving.

 

Thd flight and fight response..... its a polarity in the mind, is reversable, can be both rationally and irrationally experienced.

 

The advantage is always to chaos.

 

Now I ask you.... what if neither side gives in? Notice not all battles ended in a rout.

 

We discover this flight or flight polarity isnt the chief aspect of the psychology of warfare under such circumstance.

 

The question I propose to you is, given the left and right division of the brain..... and the preference in ancient times to hit the left unshielded side of the enemy formation (their right)...... were they reacting to a conscious, reasoned awareness that they are unprotected there, or are they unconsciously orienting to stimuli to their right (left brain) and are processing the data in the left hemisphere faster, triggering a feedback loop to terror faster than the more cool headed right hemisphere can?

 

People dont think about these things. Neither commanders nor historians. Its why we still have a future hannibal to face down in the future to teach us these lessons. We always assumed formations fell to a rationalized hysteria when flanked.....

 

I say our cultural conditioning to favor the right arm MADE a culture of morale and routs crucial in the ancient world. Had we been taught to hold our weapons and shields in opposite arms, armies would of held longer.

 

It effects us to this day..... rifles are still held with a right arm preference. Battle formations are more balanced in general, to ensure a coherent unit cant be flanked, but they do get broken up all the time, and crazy stuff happens.

 

 

Your best chance of surviving a ancient battle is strategem.... pure and simple. If the enemy is advancing, poison the water and give ground. F them.

[caldrail]

The idea that morale is the major factor is not unusual - I've always said myself that half of war is pschology - and many years ago I came across a wargamer whose rules were based entirely on morale both because it did away with bookeeping of casualities but also because it meant that players had to be more aware of circumstance to be successful. I tried it but somehow it just didn't work for me.

 

However, morale is certainly a huge factor in warfare. With it, men will stand against impossible odds, even to their own sacrifice. Without it, an army collaspes.

 

 

Ancient calvary was weak against infantry in melee. Worst thing that a
pure calvary unit could face was a mixed infantry/calvary unit.....
Romans did this often.

Ancient cavalry weren't weak, the horse gave them weight, height, and mobility. Infantry needed to act coherently - a weak defence would be ripped open by cavalry and this was why infantry were so keen to fend off horsemen, resulting in cavalry tactics to threaten, harass, and outflank enemy infantry.. Once an infantry unit began to break, as might well occur under pressure from cavalry, the horsemen would likely wreak havoc and anyone getting away from them could call themselves very lucky.

 

 

How much morale do you think kamikaze pilots had? Best of luck getting
me to shave the morning of my last flight. Everything done around
kamikaze pilots was highly programmable and ritualistic..... all in the
hopes that some would carry through in the task. Even then, commanders
took pragmatic assurances...... chaining them to the cock pit and giving
just enough fuel one way.. All in the hope they would figure if they
had to die, might as well die taking out the enemy anyway.


Me, Id probably take off, flip around immediately and ram my propellers
up the HQ building that thought my suicide run up in the first place.If
I gotta die, Im taking out the sickos who drafted me and assigned me to
die without the possibility of surviving.

But then you don't have a japanese mindset. For them, it was a matter of honour and logical exchange. Firstly samurai tradition (or rather, the 1930's reinvention of it) says that a warrior should consider himself already dead and not to be frightened by the possibility; secondly, that dying in combat gave a death a purpose; thirdly, that a suicide attack upon a capital ship was the exchange of one man to sink an entire ship crewed by a thousand, which to the Japanese was clearly an advantageous loss; fourthly, in choosing to die in battle rather than rip his propellors off, he honours his family and ancestors with his conduct.

 

 

The question I propose to you is, given the left and right division of
the brain..... and the preference in ancient times to hit the left
unshielded side of the enemy formation (their right)...... were they
reacting to a conscious, reasoned awareness that they are unprotected
there, or are they unconsciously orienting to stimuli to their right
(left brain) and are processing the data in the left hemisphere faster,
triggering a feedback loop to terror faster than the more cool headed
right hemisphere can?

 

Oh good grief. No, it was a simple matter of dextirty and practicialty. Most people were (and still are) right handed and taught to fight so. Thus they logically met the shield of the enemy on that side who understandably was trying to protect himself as much as kill his opponent.

 

Note that Roman gladiators were invaribaly expected to fight right handed. Those that fought left handed (such as Commodus) were considered unusual.