Flying Squirrel Entertainment
The Lounge => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: Riddlez on July 26, 2016, 11:18:45 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs
So I came across this video and I am most intrigued by this - being someone who is enrolling for a military career in September.
Now, the video explains a lot, but it leaves me with a question:
How was this in medieval combat, both for archers and hand-to-hand, as well as the slightly more anonymous mass killing in sieges.
Anyone has any idea or can make an educated guess?
-
Oh nice I came across that video 2 days ago. I think the part about psychopaths was interesting.
-
Well he addresses that to some extent in his other video, not exactly the same thing but he talks about ancient and medieval warfare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDNyU1TQUXg
-
We take a TAPS personality test along with another psych exam, and the conditions during basic and AIT training make it seem like you are in battle, with environmental physical and psychological elements being thrown at you. If you can't pass that then rip, although some do and later in combat obviously freeze.
I think it may have been an issue during medieval times but honestly they were born knowing that was their way of life so did not feel as much sentimentality when it came to human life than current day soldiers do. Unless you are IS I guess
-
Would guess myself that the defense mechanism and adrenaline kick in when in hand-to-hand combat: do or die things and stuff...
What are the TAPS tests you speak of? Are these during basic or AIT? Or the pre-selection tests?
-
Would guess myself that the defense mechanism and adrenaline kick in when in hand-to-hand combat: do or die things and stuff...
What are the TAPS tests you speak of? Are these during basic or AIT? Or the pre-selection tests?
During pre-selection tests (at what we call MEPS), administered again in a different format during basic AND AIT
-
found riddlez
https://video-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.1790-2/13859965_106225596486797_1991353462_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjM2NSwicmxhIjo1MTIsInZlbmNvZGVfdGFnIjoidjNfNDI2X2NyZl8yM19tYWluXzMuMF9zZCJ9&rl=365&vabr=203&oh=02584719be4cf4f8149386daec631690&oe=5798F0F6
It's this childish "Hey let's make a trolling post on this serious thread because I can'-behavior that I am growing very tired of. Stay in the Mess Hall if that's all what you are here for.
- Duuring
-
Not American and not giving a shit
-
Seems accurate
-
Hmmm, anti-Riddlez conspiracy. You guys flatter me.
-
That video was quite intriguing and really makes you wonder. I always remember that in the documentaries I would watch on WW2 there was one American soldier who slit a German's throat, puked afterwards and says that the guilt haunts him everyday because he saw the man's family in his wallet. War is a brutal thing and it's easy to see why only a small percentage truly wish to indulge in it or take someone's life. Hollywood has obviously never taken this account.
-
That video was quite intriguing and really makes you wonder. I always remember that in the documentaries I would watch on WW2 there was one American soldier who slit a German's throat, puked afterwards and says that the guilt haunts him everyday because he saw the man's family in his wallet. War is a brutal thing and it's easy to see why only a small percentage truly wish to indulge in it or take someone's life. Hollywood has obviously never taken this account.
In some macabre way they have. All those enemies shooting and not killing the bad guy...
-
Well some were nut cases like my grandfather, who had a racial hatred against the Japanese until he passed away. Could have been ptsd but he was a nut who used to talk about killing them like it was funny.
-
I know people who expressed it was 'fun' being a soldier and 'shooting and killing for a bit'. Yeah, to an Afghanistan veteran.
There are always some people who are the moral exception to some of today's society's values. With all due respect towards your granfather, of course.
-
That video was quite intriguing and really makes you wonder. I always remember that in the documentaries I would watch on WW2 there was one American soldier who slit a German's throat, puked afterwards and says that the guilt haunts him everyday because he saw the man's family in his wallet. War is a brutal thing and it's easy to see why only a small percentage truly wish to indulge in it or take someone's life. Hollywood has obviously never taken this account.
In some macabre way they have. All those enemies shooting and not killing the bad guy...
Well when someone has "plot" Armour on them can be quite difficult ;D
-
Interesting...
New person to watch, thanks man
-
I do believe there were instances of soldiers breaking down in ancient and medieval battlefields. However, people those days didn't recognize what it was and took it for cowardice, which is why it is barely recorded. But it has to be said: death was a much more closer thing to people back in the day then it is now. In fact, we live in a society where we dread death and want to push it away, while in the medieval world, people lived very close to it and it was much more common and real to them than to us.
-
I do believe there were instances of soldiers breaking down in ancient and medieval battlefields. However, people those days didn't recognize what it was and took it for cowardice, which is why it is barely recorded. But it has to be said: death was a much more closer thing to people back in the day then it is now. In fact, we live in a society where we dread death and want to push it away, while in the medieval world, people lived very close to it and it was much more common and real to them than to us.
^This.
-
It was not until World War 1 and World War 2 until stress and trauma during war started to be investigated properly as the problems appeared more visible. There was a quite interesting study about it here couple years back by one historian. Sadly the material seems off-limits or either in Finnish, the study was dubbed "Battled nerves" and the book made after it could be translated as "Broken minds". It highlighted how different the views were still 60 years ago on the subject.
During WWII, many nations (especially ones not much affected by WW1) still classed shell shock and PTSD as a sign of cowardice and there was literally no treatments organized for them, instead they were either punished or were send back to the battle.
-
Blast shocks damage the brain and cause PTSD (e.g. suicidal behaviour). So there is something special in modern warfare regarding PTSD.
-
I heard somewhere that heavily armoured knights had some severe PTSD and were fucking crazy by 40 50.
Maybe it was just trauma from the wars and shit.
dunno if true
-
Understandable. Think that also they were often sleep-deprived, exhausted and malnourished. Combine this with the carnage they did, many of them would have suffered from PTSD but like Joer mentioned, it was classed as cowardice and was barely recorded.
-
Blast shocks damage the brain and cause PTSD (e.g. suicidal behaviour). So there is something special in modern warfare regarding PTSD.
Not nessecarily. You can get PTSS wihout physical trauma.
-
Exactly. I remember a story someone told me about Dutch soldiers who were in Bosnia, where people who drove supply trucks trough warzones but never saw any actual action got PTSD, while people who saw vicious combat several times were fine.
-
Exactly. I remember a story someone told me about Dutch soldiers who were in Bosnia, where people who drove supply trucks trough warzones but never saw any actual action got PTSD, while people who saw vicious combat several times were fine.
I do not know if this ever was mentioned in press or anything or that it caused a big fuss, but the reason those truck drivers got PTSS was because they were not allowed to stop for anything, ever, while driving a convoy.
As it happens sometimes children (carrying AKs) stepped in front of the convoy.
-
That's Afghanistan. And it's commonly known.
-
https://youtu.be/eZf-zmdrvhI
-
That's Afghanistan. And it's commonly known.
Kosovo too
-
I was speaking about Dutch troops.
-
I was speaking about Dutch troops.
So was I
-
I actually don't believe that Dutch troops found themselves in active combat situations against the Serbs in Kosovo, nor that the Serbian army used those tactics. Show me proof.
-
I actually don't believe that Dutch troops found themselves in active combat situations against the Serbs in Kosovo, nor that the Serbian army used those tactics. Show me proof.
Eye-witness story. Yeah it sounds weak but it's a veteran I've spoken with
-
So I tried to gather the following into words, hopefully you'll understand. By default, keep in mind that what I will mention below speaks about most cases and that exceptions always exist.
During medieval times it were mostly mercenaries who were fighting for a king/themselves. It was their job, and that's all what they knew. I believe they were paid with salt as it was considered very precious during that time.
Humanity and morals weren't part of their job, and many of them would raid villages and rape people as-well as "victory" treat.
Of course there are some rare/individual cases, but if I am not mistaken that was the cases in most situations on the globe. We talk about the majority here after all.
Things changed especially during Napoleonic times (ignoring the 'heretic' crossbow era for now), when normal regular peasants could enlist and propaganda was used to spread in order encourage more people to enlist to the army - that was a whole new system. They were also fighting for a cause now!
The regular people are now part of the army, and not generation of special soldiers.
And with that, one thing led to another.
And if you go further back in history (and I forgot which historical figure said that), it was accepted that nomads would raid kingdoms and win, just to settle down and become a kingdoms themselves. This would make them content and "relaxed", allowing the next group to aggressively raid and take over them - just to repeat that cycle.
Eh, I guess what I try to say with all that is people who liked violence would practice it better than others and thus would have no problem preforming it and actually turn it into a "business". Today, we can see how brain beats brawn. You still practice a type of violence, but a different one - and this time for a different not selfish cause. People who didn't like violence but would fight for a certain cause would have these moral choices and would deal with it in their own way (and these people make most of the population). That's why in the modern army, you are mentally trained for that. People know the difficulty of shooting to kill, and train others to deal with that dilemma better. Kinda like explained in the video. The consequences he mentioned are the consequences of war, and would always anyway - the soldier who was mentally prepared for that just lives to suffer these consequences. And again, depends on the person, some would need mental help and some wouldn't. And in the past, as already mentioned, those who did that mostly loved doing that and were good at it.
Keep in mind that people you live around also effect you. It's the atmosphere. Thus you will share a lot with the people you live with, which further explains the written above.
-
I do believe there were instances of soldiers breaking down in ancient and medieval battlefields. However, people those days didn't recognize what it was and took it for cowardice, which is why it is barely recorded. But it has to be said: death was a much more closer thing to people back in the day then it is now. In fact, we live in a society where we dread death and want to push it away, while in the medieval world, people lived very close to it and it was much more common and real to them than to us.
Most Medieval battles often ended fairly quickly due to routs so it was certainly a very common occurrence. You'll usually find that Medieval battles on average have lower casualty rates than those that take place in other periods for this reason. Essentially Medieval armies were fairly prone to panic seeing as they were composed of large numbers of levies rather than professional soldiers, were usually confederations of troops under the command of different lords, there was a general reliance on mercenaries to pad out armies, and so on.
Of course pitched battles in the Medieval period were in themselves quite rare, and most fighting was done via sieges, skirmishes or raids. There are occasions when armies turned up to fight and just stared at each other and then went home as both sides deemed it too risky to fight. Inexperience of pitched battle was therefore probably a major reason for soldiers to flee-time and time again battles are lost due to confusion among the ranks which leads to panic and eventual rout. The feudal system is not ideally suited in producing armies for fighting pitched battles given there could be no uniform command structure (it was hardly the Roman legions).
-
https://youtu.be/l918ta0nylY?t=1182 (https://youtu.be/l918ta0nylY?t=1182)
-
Well some were nut cases like my grandfather, who had a racial hatred against the Japanese until he passed away. Could have been ptsd but he was a nut who used to talk about killing them like it was funny.
How is it different than Japs laughing while boiling a dog alive.
-
Well some were nut cases like my grandfather, who had a racial hatred against the Japanese until he passed away. Could have been ptsd but he was a nut who used to talk about killing them like it was funny.
How is it different than Japs laughing while boiling a dog alive.
Cuz thats called cooking numnuts
-
Well some were nut cases like my grandfather, who had a racial hatred against the Japanese until he passed away. Could have been ptsd but he was a nut who used to talk about killing them like it was funny.
How is it different than Japs laughing while boiling a dog alive.
Cuz thats called cooking numnuts
kay