How the FUCK did anyone convince soldiers to physically engage and fight each other brutally when this was a major style of warfare? Even something like WW1 seems impersonal and easy compared to two masses of men engaging face to face and hacking away at each other with steel. Furthermore, especially how the FUCK did anyone convince anyone who wasn't outright suicidal to assault the walls first in a siege? I imagine the first man up a ladder or out of a tower or through the breach would have almost no chance to live, but someone had to, and did. Madness.
>>28262426
They said if you don't you're going to prison.
>>28262438
and kill your family
>>28262426
there was no internet back then.
>>28262426
Very often young men were tricked into signing up by recruiters who promised money and popularity. Or their alternatives were worse.
>>28262426
Money and Glory.
Peer pressure, punishment, lies, greed, indoctrination, etc.
>>28262441
Well thank god that doesnt happen anymore!
>>28262426
Some people are cut out for that and some aren't, just like anything else.
>>28262448
>convince
If you don't then we'll kill you, right here and right now.
If you do, someone might kill you in the future. And we'll pay you for your service too.
I know that in the British army at the time of the Napoleonic wars if you volunteered for it you were pretty much guaranteed promotion should you survive. The Sgt of the forlorn hope as it was known would be made an officer and such. Plus you have to take into consideration army's weren't exactly fond of paying you. Do 1st in gets 1st chance to loot
>>28262426
>How the FUCK did anyone convince soldiers to physically engage and fight each other in pre-modern wars?
Because, comparatively speaking, casualty figures in medieval military campaigns were light even if the campaigns themselves were brutal. Due to the lack of productivity that characterized medieval society, there were very low limits on the numbers of troops that could be fielded and sustained as well as low rates of replenishment. This is why even unqualified military disasters like Crecy, Agincourt, and Courtrai only resulted in the deaths of a few thousand soldiers tops.
Fast forwarding a little bit to the time of your image, post-medieval/pre-early modern warfare still had comparatively low troop numbers but many more mercenary companies than medieval times. A mercenary, while not likely to put his life on the line to win a battle, is probably going to take the duty of fighting a bit more seriously than either some foppish nobleman with no combat experience or a peasant with no formal military training who is only there because he is obligated to be part of a levy.
Then we get to the early modern era (think 1600s, 1700s). You still have extensive use of mercenaries but much larger armies than before, although they aren't nearly as large as what you see during the wars of the French Republic with conscription. You also saw some leaders, most notably Frederick the Great, specifically pursuing a policy of having their armies NOT be composed of the citizens of their countries. The rationale for this was that the death of a citizen in battle meant the loss of tax revenue and national productivity; as such, it was better for your soldiers to be foreigners whose deaths would have no such impact. The result was that recruiters from Prussia became famous for literally kidnapping people to force them into the Prussian army. This is the context behind Frederick's famous quote about soldiers needing to fear their officers more than the enemy.
>>28262426
>How the FUCK did anyone convince soldiers to physically engage and fight each other brutally
It's like you don't have a pair of testicles, tbqh
>>28262440
That sums it up quite well.
Rationing of alcohol on the day of battle was common practice at least 17th thruout 19th century. Meaning everyone was a little bit tipsy and thus braver or more stupid wich way you like it.
No alternatives ¿Would you spend your life working the fields every day until your body collapse or Would you fight? Other way could be being evil and become thief or shit like that i guess.
>>28262588
>A mercenary, while not likely to put his life on the line to win a battle, is probably going to take the duty of fighting a bit more seriously than either some foppish nobleman
You do realize nobility in the middle ages was basically a warrior caste, right? All a noble male did from childhood to death was train to fight and actually fight in wars.
>>28262588
>The rationale for this was that the death of a citizen in battle meant the loss of tax revenue and national productivity; as such, it was better for your soldiers to be foreigners whose deaths would have no such impact. The result was that recruiters from Prussia became famous for literally kidnapping people to force them into the Prussian army. This is the context behind Frederick's famous quote about soldiers needing to fear their officers more than the enemy.
Are you saying that Frederick the Great's army was completely composed of foreigners? I would disagree with that. Certainly I would say that there were many foreigners in the army, but I don't believe an exact record exists which depicts the Prussian Army as being majority foreigners, as you claim.
You should also keep in mind that in during this period of Prussia's existence there was alot of recovery happening from the previous ravaging of Prussia by Swedish and Catholic armies during the previous wars. French Protestant and immigrants from other German nations were common because of how depopulated Prussia actually was at the end of the wars that had ravaged Germany.
>>28262685
>You do realize nobility in the middle ages was basically a warrior caste, right?
That was precisely the problem, and is a problem with virtually every instance of "soldier" being a hereditary status (compare with the Manchus) instead of one based on merit and results. While there were undoubtedly some excellent warriors produced by it, the system of military aristocracy as practiced by medieval Europe also produced plenty of severe fuck-ups and had no mechanism for weeding them out other than them dying in battle.
An example that immediately comes to mind is this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Fearless
Specifically, look up his role in the Nicopolis crusade. He's basically the medieval equivalent of a butterbar from hell, and he typifies all that could and often did go wrong in a medieval military.
>>28262426
Pre-industrial wars weren't really all that deadly. Very few people were actually killed during combat. It was basically a big shouting/pushing match with one side attempting to break the other's morale-- the rout was where the real killing happened, and even that didn't account for the bulk of the casualties. The real killer, as always, was disease. It wasn't until the advent of crew-served ranged weapons and modern training breaking down the soldiers inhibitions to kill that people actually starting killing and dying on the battlefield en masse.
To answer your second question, suicide missions like that were often undertaken by penal troops-- a slim chance of living was better than a 100% chance of hanging. At other times they were undertaken by volunteers, who were seeking the glory that it would bring them if they lived.
Isn't this more of a /his/ thread?
>>28262803
>Are you saying that Frederick the Great's army was completely composed of foreigners?
No, just that its proportion of foreigners was extremely high, even for the period. If the following
"The Prussian army consisted of 187,000 soldiers in 1776, 90,000 of whom were Prussian subjects in central and eastern Prussia. The remainder were foreign (both German and non-German) volunteers or conscripts."
is to be believed, then the majority of the army was in fact foreign-born even in peacetime. I imagine the number of foreigners was even higher during the time of the Seven Years War due to the annexation of Saxony and other factors.
That said, this is obviously just the rank and file. The officer class was composed of the Prussian nobility, and I imagine the NCOs were also primarily native Prussians.
You didn't have to convince many people to fight. Boys grew up playing with wooden swords, pretending to be heroes in combat. For many people, a fight to the death was the ultimate contest and the ultimate ecstasy. Others followed their peers.
>>28262426
Gee, I dunno, men have only been hacking things to pieces before homo sapiens were even a thing.
>>28262825
So let me get this straight. You apparently think the 'merit-based' military is some kind of a highly competitive enterprise where only the best and the brightest join and rise to the top, while medieval militaries were full of shit, useless bums because they were born, bred, and trained from their infancy for war.... And your proof for this is a wikipedia article of one guy from the middle ages who was kind of a retard.
>>28262966
Trust me, most if not every person in any era would do (and did) literally anything else than fight in a war if they were not morons and appealing alternatives existed. The only exception being the pre-modern aristocracy.
>>28262855
Can you source me that sentence? I'm just curious.
>>28263536
Are you are going to try and tell me that you think having a hereditary military class produces a more effective military force than one based on merit? Putting aside Europe, Tokugawa Japan, Qing-era China, Egypt, and the Ottoman Empire all tried it, and it was an unqualified failure in all cases. There is also the obvious fact that no first world military uses such a system--if it really is more effective than a system where, when it comes to positions of leadership, people are promoted based on their ability to produce results, then why has it been abandoned by everyone of consequence?
>>28262426
look at africa
>>28262426
Women(usually someone else's women), loot, plunder, and a steady supply of food.
>>>/his/438303
hey OP, you could have at least cross-linked
>>28262426
>kill those strange foreigners or they will rape your women and children
There's quite the motivation right there.
>>28262966
There's a difference between playing with toys and stabbing a dude less than an arm's reach away.
The did have some ranged weapons in the ancient world. Slings and bows.
A few other factors would be intergenerational blood-feuds, a lifetime of boredom on a farm, and the fact that brutality was relatively normal for ancient people. They had to kill and pluck their own chickens, beating children was common, corporal punishment was the norm.
>>28262426
>How the FUCK did anyone convince soldiers to physically engage and fight each other brutally when this was a major style of warfare?
Because pike square on pike square fights were rare one, and two all of the soldiers were rightly told that breaking from formation was a very good way to get most of the unit killed.
> Furthermore, especially how the FUCK did anyone convince anyone who wasn't outright suicidal to assault the walls first in a siege?
A number of ways: promises of money, land , and or title. Also having a lot of siege ladders or towers is also a good means. The more people going up "first" the better the odds for those people to live. It is important to note that assaulting a fort that has not had its walls cracked open the conventional wisdom is the attacker needs to out number the defender AT LEST three to one. Attack a large number of different places to spread out the defenders with a large number of ladder or tower to get a larger number of men onto the top of the walls fast. If you can not do so then it is a very bad idea to try and storm the walls.
>through the breach would have almost no chance to live, but someone had to, and did.
This would be the worst out of the things you listed, because there is a good chance that there may only be one breach thus only one place that the defender has to heavily protect. A smart general will either try to surprise the defenders by attacking the breach at a odd hour or by suppress fire via mortars. However both of those tactics only had limited. The best option was simply to make multiple breach, but that may well take more gunpowder or cannon shot then they have.
>>28262426
Probably had something to do with syphilis.
>>28262426
Mostly, there was a belief that if you were skilled enough, strong enough, tough enough, or just brave enough you could survive anything. For most of history this was partially true. A shield is an effective defense if you use it right and most "civilized" nations had some kind of armor. As long as you didn't run and didn't get surrounded chances were good that you'd survive. Most of the casualties was when you broke and ran and they stabbed you in the back.
When the musket came about most soldiers tried their best to delude themselves into thinking that the bullets wouldn't hit them for...reasons...
Still, there were bayonet charges and someone skilled enough in hand to hand combat could plausibly fend off enemy thrusts.
By the time of the US civil war, those delusions were looking mighty thin and most soldiers learned to keep their head down.
>>28262426
Melee combat is and was pretty fucking fucked, but not even the most inept retard of a commander would order the things happening in that picture to happen
>>28266748
>take gunpowder
Implying they wouldn't just sap the wall like they always did.
They wouldn't fire their normal culverins at the wall just the top and then they would either bring heavy bombards or just sap the wall.
>>28267601
Huh. Now that you mention it, there does seem to be a shift in the types of heroes.
It went from "he was so brave to fight and win flawlessly" to "he was so brave to die for his men"
>>28262426
They would do anything just to get their senpai to notice them.
>>28262426
Anything to avoid serfdom.
As far as being the first up the ladder, you're in the mist of battle, adrenaline is flowing, your commanders are pumping you up, you literally have nothing else to live for. No family, since most people die before 30, no internet or many forms of entertainment at all. You're born a peasant and therefor assume its impossible for you to amount to anything outside of being a good solider. Its not that hard to imagine someone wanting to lead an assault. You're choosing between a little piece of glory vs a guaranteed life of mediocrity. And if you die your died a good death serving your king's will, aka god's will, and would surly go to heaven.
>>28262426
By telling them the the Pope (and consequently God) is on their side. Or by telling them that the current Pope is a heretic and doing what he says is literally sucking the devil's cock, so invading this other country is doing God's work.
They were all hardcore Christfags back then, so religion was a pretty big motivator if a king knew how to use it.
>>28264460
Whoah... where the fuck do I get an ak with a bayo like that?
>>28269741
the free world
>>28269741
It was a Chinese variant but I'm pretty sure they don't manufacture them anymore. The ones that do come on sale are over $200 for the required mounts. You might be able to modify a SKS bayo assembly but not sure.
>>28270849
SKS barrel diameter is .550 while AKs are .59ish depending on variant. Would be possible to turn down a barrel but that would require getting a custom FSB or modifying the SKS assembly to clamp on.
>>28269741
Dinks.
>>28262426
Faggots hadn't been invented yet. Men were goddamn men. They didn't start their day with a half-gay faggaccino with extra santorum, like you homos today do.
>>28262426
Rape and pillage. That was the traditional reward for soldiers, since the Dawn of Time.
Shit, it made more sense to fight then than it does to fight now. What's the GI bill compared to Rape and Pillage?
>>28262426
They were 'ard boyz, lad. Before the battle began, they would sing songs with their chaplain. Then they would take the dust from their doublets and throw it over their shoulder as a symbolic dedication to death and the gods of war. Anyone trying to run mid-fight would be killed by his own comrades. Early modern warfare was extremely, extremely lethal. Most of the first few ranks would be killed immediately upon impact of the pikes, which is why those soldiers got perks. A day of battle would kill between 1/4 and 1/2 of the men. For instance, in the landsknechts, these were included amongst the Doppelsöldners, the double-pay men. Even without battle, an army would attrite 20-80% of its manpower, though much of this is desertion.
In truth, battles were rare. Memoirs are filled with boring ass shit about the drudgery of campaigning. For instance, Le Bel talks about how his 1327 campaign was filled with incompetence and, like many military campaigns, food that only barely qualifies as food. The CO somehow managed to botch their march completely, such that they wandered around lost all day, and ultimately were only saved by asking directions from a local peasant. Or, in the memoirs of Lt. Durova, a Russian Napoleonic-era officer, she recalls being ordered to guard a muddy road during a rainstorm. When she finally made it back, the CO was incredulous. The soldier's lot is almost universally one of gambling, booze, stupid games, and intense masturbation. But all in all, the experience is fond though sometimes bittersweet. This is not to say they denied the reality of violence. Stories abound of the piled limbs, rotting flesh, and the smell of death.
>>28272279
One story that sticks with me, though it's not of this thread's timeframe, is the tale of one young junior officer in the Indian Mutiny. They executed a bayonet charge and crushed the enemy, and he stood on the battlefield observing the human carnage. It reminded him of his own father, a major who had lost both of his arms in battle. He thought about the fate of the wounded. While wounded senior officers could fall back to a desk job or retire, ordinary soldiers had to hope for veteran's pensions that never came, often being reduced to begging on the streets. But violence came with the territory.
Blaise de Monluc said that if his own grandson did not go to war, he would disown him. And he had lost all of his sons to war, and had been horribly disfigured when he was shot in the face. This man was a French marshal. The writers of Spanish martial treatises during were well-decorated career soldiers, having won their positions through years and years of fighting. William Marshal, Marshal of England, personally led the charge at the Battle of Lincoln, killing four men immediately. He was seventy. Pierre de Bayard not only fought against Spain's "Great Captain", but earlier in his career held a bridge against two hundred enemy troops, guaranteeing the retreat of his men. And the Great Captain's triumph led to great fame and a generation revering him. Georg von Frundsberg, father of the Landsknecht, lived a life of unending war. While many officers received their rank because of their connections, those that reached high rank through merit were hard motherfuckers. In an age of absurdly lethal warfare, these were the survivors. There's something to be said about being led by a legendary soldier.
>>28272289
They valued different things than us. For them, war was an unavoidable truth of life. Many of them had lived war since youth, even since times we would now consider childhood. When war is a value of your society and a rite of passage for you as a man, you will not find as abhorrent, nor its sacrifices as great. War was their raison d'etre. Ave nex alea.
"No man who has not experienced it knows how to speak of the satisfaction which comes from this sort of action. Do you think that a man who acts in this way will fear death? Not at all; for he is so comforted, so much carried away that he doesn't realize where he is. He simply does not fear anything."
- t. Jean de Beuil
>>28271283
How do you start your day?
>>28271283
>>28262426
as far as mercenary pike and shot armies went
>a pike cost an average months wage
>you made a month's average wage per week as a mercenary, for the most part spending your days as others have said filled with practicing, guarding shit, gambling, getting drunk, and prostitutes/masturbation.
>battles were rare and most were not the most famous/infamous
most of the time a battle resulted in one side retreating with the bulk of their force and surrendering/ransoming themselves via concessions beyond whatever was being fought about. During shit like the wars between italian city states mercenary armies fought constantly in hundreds of battles for their masters, but only a few stand out due to major routs that led to mass death of one side and/or major fuckups.
as you average 3rd son of a low to mid class family that wasn't in a position to become a tradesman via familial connections, you pretty much had jack shit keeping you around doing manual labor for shit pay; might as well join your local landsknecht band and make ok pay, potentially enough that your sons get to make better money higher in the ranks/not have to do the same shit you did. we're still the same people we were in the 1500's and motivated by the same issues.
as a young blood pikeman in a landsknecht pike block your ass would be in the middle surrounded by ~2 ranks deep on all sides of heavily armored veterans. This was because
A. the heavily armored guys had a high survivability rate at the front against other pike blocks
B. they being on all sides kept the newbies from retreating
C. it insulated the newfags from pretty much the whole battle
you had a pretty good chance of relative prosperity, comradery, and bitches. or you'd die in your own blood and shit and not care after it faded to black.
>>28272531
renaissance pike armies vs other infantry for the most part fought in a way that might seem kind of retarded, but it was a evolution of hundreds of years of martial tradition; really the only people within reach to attack each other in a pikeblock of pikes v pikes were the first two ranks. they would march to pike distance and duke it out poking at each other until one side made a controlled retreat. The swiss and in some cases the landsknechts also would at a sprint run at another pike block with all ranks of pikes bared and try to rout them and break the formation; it could result in significant death of the lighter armored fags in the middle as a fuckton of pikes they are not adept at redirecting/avoiding start flying past them as the enemy tries to buckle the front line and break the formation. Or the attack could be countered and the switzers would get their asses handed to them, leading to massive death on thier side. In cases like this a rout would most likely occur and THEN you end up with one side suffering mass casualties as they attempt an unorganized retreat.
you also have halberdiers, crossbowmen, arbequisers, and cavalry, both lancers and pistol bearing reiters, to deal with on the field.
>>28272535
the pike block was mainly a response to cavalry and did quite well keeping them at fuck off distance. Lancers charging a pike block rarely occurred without either a disadvantaged/disorganized/broken pike shiltron or massive death on the side of the cavalry force. Reiters were a response to pike blocks "fuck off" ability to conventional cavalry forces; they'd charge in as a thin column and wheel when in front of the enemy and discharge thier pistols into the pikemen, followed by reloading and wheeling again to repeat the process. they'd be followed up by either lancers or an attack by a solid pike formation.
As firearms got better they started to replace crossbows as the massed range weapon of choice, then the ~20-80 split of ranged to infantry started to shift until you see the solid musket armies of the late 17th-19th centuries.
In short all this meant you had a very good chance of living until you died.
All or nothing battles were quite rare compared to smaller engagements where the complete subjugation and destruction of the enemy wasn't the goal like modern conflicts and such fights were mostly the result of desperation or mass bungling.
>>28262685
yeah, in the 8th-12th century. get past the dark ages and the early medieval period and the "warrior caste" that made up the lower rungs of the ruling caste became much smaller in comparison to the freeman professional soldier. "man at arms" did not mean nobility and the british/french concept of knighthood did not exist in the rest of europe and by the 14th century "knight" and "squire" had predominantly become formal titles unrelated to marshal ability or role in society.
the mass media portrayal of everyone living in mud huts and working the fields so one guy could outfit 5 soldiers to fight with the 5 soldiers his 50 "royal" buddies had to go kick someone elses ass is from a very narrow, anglocentric view of early feudalism post norman conquest.
also the whole "grab ur peasants and have em fight!" thing is a crude bastardization of the saxon fyrd system dismantled entirely by the Normans post conquest in favor of the feudal system, which by the 1200's had changed into a society with a burgeoning class of freemen ranging from essentially peasants to some of the richest men in the country. during this time and on they became the backbone and lions share of english armies through the contract system, not members of the noble class.
>>28262426
People were much less of pussies back then as well.
>>28262426
Rome enticed crusaders by promising them entry to heaven if they fight. Some took it too seriously. If I'm not mistaken, Duke Godfrey of Bouillon lost a hand when he tried to climb a siege ladder first with all those angry muslims waiting at the top of the walls of Jerusalem.
>>28271283
dont blame this on the queers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
The Spartans were hardly straight either.
This isnt about being gay, this is about being a coward. This is about men raised in a culture where they are told that "Violence is never the answer". Gay men have fought in every major conflict, some recognized and some not. They are the experts in inserting things into their fellow man, be it a spear point or their other slightly less intimidating weapon.
>>28272550
that fucking swagger
>>28262426
I'll tell you what I told you on /his/
By not having to deal with raging faggots like yourself.
In some ancient armies, the first people up the ladder during a siege were regarded as heroes. If they died, their families received more than the usual compensation, and if they survived they were given tremendous rewards, such as land or property
Many ancient battles weren't slaughterfests. They were actually kind of like skirmishes. Squabble a little bit until the other army runs away. Many of the them, of course, were indeed slaugherfests. Usually in these cases, the armies belonged to nation-states which through propaganda, religion and folklore, churned out soldiers the same way we churn out tanks today.
>>28262426
Out-and-out battlefield slaughters were very rare. Like >>28262588 said, mortality rates from direct combat were pretty low compared to modern figures.
Armies would harass each other through protracted skirmishes rather than face a direct confrontation.
If they did fight head-on, fights would usually continue until one sides' rank-and-file would get routed and flee, effectively ending the battle. Retreating and/or surrendering was also very common.
The soldiers that would fight to the death were usually elite units and not comparable to the army as a whole.
>>28262588
Wow that's crazy dude
they give them good speech to rous them up
there is the famous
in your deathbead did you have a chance to say you will take my life but not freedom?
>payment
>food
>control their knowledge of the world
>threats of death or punishment
it's not hard anon
>>28262685
>dis nigga's serious
lol
>>28269741
Can I get a flip-spike bayo on an ar?
>>28272620
Heh. Not bad, bruh.
The Spanish Tercios were professional soldiers that were groomed by hidalgos. Their life was defined through combat.
>>28272930
Those were some cool motherfuckers.
>>28262842
Really?
I was reading about a battle with the Romans when Julius Caesar set foot on what is now Dutch soil, destroying two Germanic tribes in a battle that left 150,000 people.
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3356684/Caesar-decimated-Dutch-Archaeologists-pinpoint-site-battle-destroyed-two-tribes-left-150-000-dead.html
But you know I've noticed that the Romans and the Greeks and such had much much larger battles and better armies than medieval times did
>>28268202
This plays a role. Melee combat between equally disadvantaged opponents is pretty fucking risky on the best of days.
So you try to stack odds in your favour before the hand-to-hand fighting even has a chance to begin; it was very rarely just two evenly matched forces slamming into each other with the intention to kill every last one of the opposition.
>>28273008
interdasting
>>28273008
>leaderless men with shit morale and women vs hardened veterans
Romans didn't fuck around
>>28273058
too bad they got fucked once they went into the woods.
and ancient battles were a lot fucking bigger than medieval. due to less plague and a bigger chance to get rapes to death if you don't fight.
>>28273122
Pretty sure the Romans fucked them at the Weser river and the Angivarian Wall. Only reason Arminius did so well against Rome is because he and his countrymen betrayed their allies and led them into a trap.
>>28273122
Why less plague? Surely more dead people + more people in general would lead to more diseases
>>28273166
http://literarytalk.blogspot.com/2009/06/tolerance-apathy-last-virtues-of-dying.html
>>28262426
You shoot a bullet in the head of the first one to complain.
WWI, man.
>>28269741
Type 56; they have a pig-sticker and a hooded front sight.
>>28273201
>push of pike
>WWI
>>28262426
life was relatively harder then, the madness of war was not as far off from the daily toil and struggle of daily life as it would seem to someone alive today.
all war is hell
>>28262426
in that mess you didn't even know who was your friend or foe
I mean, colours weren't invented then, rite
>>28273188
Nice one, thanks for the info.
Only used that pic because it looked kinda Roman for this thread.
>>28262426
Didn't get the answers you wanted on /his/, eh? Faggot.
>>28273386
Colours, yes, uniforms, no.
>>28273242
>not the gif
You can git the fuck out too.
>>28273390
Holy fuck, not even OP here; how many time you gonna samefag that question? Choke on some buckshot.
Multiple threads on different boards isn't anything I've seen people complain about. Better than repeated version on the same board.
>>28272930
Can we talk about Tericos and Hidalgos more? Their history is cool as fuck. They sort of sound like SpeshMureens with the unique flair each Hidalgo (motherfuggin Chapter Masters) brought.
Also, Tericos fighting Aztec, and whopping ass man-for-man is Awesome as fuck.
>>28262588
>This is the context behind Frederick's famous quote about soldiers needing to fear their officers more than the enemy.
Damm
>>28269331
>bring heavy bombards or just sap the wall.
Even with siege gun cracking open well made walls were a pain in the ass. Going by a Scottish source from right after the bishops war the ideal means was to dig a trench 170 to 110 yards away from the wall then put the cannon to be used inside the front of the trench. By putting them so close it helped resolve the accuracy issues. On the following morning of the cannons being enplaced they would open fire at daybreak. After 12 hours ( so 6 or 7 PM) the bombardment would end and the gap would be assaulted immediately to prevent repairs. This plan was using a mix of 32, 42, and 64 pound cannons for the wall itself and everything lighter to clear the wall tops near the target area.
>just sap the wall
The issue with sapping the walls is the water table and moats. If the water table was to high then sapping just is not possible. Also if the diging team hits clay then work will slow down a lot. Moats factor into this by forcing the tunnel to be digged deeper down else risk breaking into the air ( most moats were dry) and then have the enemy attack the tunnel.
>>28262850
Let me teach you something. Don't ever ask something related to leave the board. There tends to be on-topic conversation rather than just normal shitposting.
peer pressure from being a massive formation had a lot to do with it.
>>28269410
That was the Enlightenment era philosophy.
It's actually a big thing about how the Gun has shaped how we think of ourselves. Ideas about equality and democracy flourished and ideas about social standing fell apart.
Ultimately, much of the foundations of our modern civilization seem to be soaked in blood. War is still the final argument of princes and the final arbiter of what is accepted and what is rejected.
>>28262588
>Agincourt
>few thousand deaths
>Cannae
>few thousand deaths
40,000-80,000 deaths in an afternoon is a HUGE amount of people. It pales in comparison to, say, the 500,000 deaths in WW1 battles (which lasted months), but sneezing at it is ridiculous. We jerk ourselves to the violence of D-Day, but that was [only] 20,000 casualties in comparison. Cannae's dead outnumber the dead of Waterloo.
You're also ignoring Chinese military history completely.
