>>435622
>what made the soldiers in the first rank charge forward to certain death?

The 20,000 or so guys right behind him that would kill him if he ran away. Basically you have a small chance of living if you fight the enemy because you'll have back up. But if one guy runs he'll be killed for sure. If your going to desert you don't do it when you charging in. At that point you're already committed. Also training, drills, camaraderie, group mentality.

>>435622

SUBLIMATED FEAR.

>>435622
Alcohool. Religious zeal. Duty toward the nation or the King. Money. Bpnds with your fellow soldiers.

>>435681
FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL/, FUCKING SCHIZOPHRENIC

It wasn't necessarily certain. The guys in front weren't always kept there the whole time. You'd rotate them if you could.

Melee also did not happen like in Braveheart. Unit cohesion was vital, specifically because of the need to keep men's spirits up and also to physically keep them in place. You can run away if there's 6 ranks of guys standing behind you; you will also take heart from their nearness.

Combat itself probably took place in furious bouts lasting perhaps minutes at a time. Two lines would approach to within a few dozen yards. Missiles would be discharged, if they carried them. Then one side or the other might charge, but they might also just edge up to one another until they were in range to strike with melee weapons. This is an extremely tiring affair, both physically and mentally, and so after a short time they would separate, re-dress the lines, drag back anybody they could who'd been injured, perhaps move the more winded guys back into the ranks. Then repeat.

This is why battles could last all day. It was often a lot more measured thing than we imagine. And ultimately what got people killed and what lost battles wasn't that you stabbed all their dudes to death before they could stab all yours to death. It was not uncommon for only 10% of a battle's casualties to take place in actual combat, the rest happening after one side or the other lost heart and routed.

Harshness of discipline was an important part, too. One reason the Romans did so well, they were willing to submit themselves to extremely harsh discipline (contrast this with Greek hoplites, who were proud citizens that were likely to put their general on trial when they got home if he was too harsh). Any meaningful offense was punished with death. Certainly running in battle was likely to get you strangled to death.

>>435714

continued

So your options are: Stand and fight. Maybe be killed. Run, and if your side loses, get run down and killed by the enemy. Run, and if your side wins anyway, get executed for cowardice.

So yeah, if battle happened like Hollywood is fond of portraying, it's mystifying how you'd get people to do it 'cause you're surrounded on all sides by enemies and even if you kill the guy in front of you, another is just gonna stick you in the back. Except it happened nothing like that, a huge amount of time was devoted to keeping men all in a big block so that the enemy was all on one side of them and you knew where to expect an attack from.

>>435622
Battles in past went on like impulses. First line fought a bit, then retired, rested, and let second line fight, then they retired, and so on. Rotation.
Also, people wouldn't fight until they all died, except in rare cases of highly disciplined units.
Usually after some losses, one side would break and flee, and would get cut down by pursing enemy. That's when most of losses happened.

>>435622
The fact that they were gonna be replaced soon.

>>435714
>>435728
This lad explained it well.
Also, being in first line was a privilege.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhVh6edP_k

>>435622
Guarantee you in a battle of undisciplined v undisciplined troops, the side receiving the charge will be more likely to shit their pants.

>>435622
they didn't charge forward, they marched forward in formation, shoulder to shoulder, and casualties were low until one side broke