How did guys march into battle knowing that death is a near certainty? I'm talking about the frontline guys in medieval times. Surely survival instinct kicks in at some point and you turn and run the other way? What was in their minds to hold the line?
>>75537188
They were paid more. Also everyone would think you were a badass and you'd probably be the one getting the loot first, if you survived. Also, it was more likely that people ran away before the fighting even started, especially if they faced a professional force.
>>75537188
The fucker behind you pushes you forward and the fucker behind him and so on
There was nothing else to do but fuck wenches and kill kebabs
Nevermind medieval times, marching in rows while cannons hurl grapeshot and lord knows what else at you only to stop at 100 paces, fire, reload for a minute and fire again all the while the enemy is doing the same to you. If you get hit you better hope its your heart or head otherwise you'll probably die agonizing death from infection preceeded by amputation.
>>75537346
Read "on killing" by Dave grossman
>>75537415
lol. i love /pol/
a really masochistic part of me longs to experience that hell.
Pride, duty, honour, loyalty -
all foreign concepts to the modern anglo. And you know who the last people were to uphold these values.
>>75537188
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbhANeJL_T4
Here you go.
It wasn't as certain as one would think, also they didn't keep constant contact until one of the sides dies like the hollywood shows us.
>>75537512
True.
>>75537512
values are worth nothing if youre dead.
>>75537772
what's the point in living if you have no values to serve a higher purpose
>>75537188
If you don't, the king rapes your wife and puts your body on a stick until you die.
>>75537188
It was pretty common for people to run away before the battle when they actually saw their opponent
>>75537529
Based Britman, hes even woke to the Jewish lie of 'global warming.'
>>75537772
It is better to die for the Emperor than to live for yourself.
>>75537772
the anglo knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
>>75537878
Well there's always a nice rare steak and whiskey
>>75537905
lmao. its things like this that make me hate the sjw's and "professionaly offended" that we have to live with even more. they dont know how good theyve got it.
>>75537939
source? (im not disputing you; genuinely interested)
>>75537188
Because your priest and King told you God was on your side
>>75537188
Alcohol
>>75537188
Once the battle starts you have more chances of survival by fighting than by running away, if you try to run you have both sides against you.
So discipline, they held the line because by holding it they had better chance at victory and survival than by fleeing.
Most killing was done once one army had routed. Then the other side would chase them down killing them.
>>75538025
I don't have a source, it's pretty common knowledge
In most battles, most people actually survived. Only a few people actually died before retreating happened. Military conflicts were mostly about holding the line until it looked obvious how it was going to go.
I think we tend to view most wars through the lens of world wars 1 and 2. But really, most wars throughout history were made up of small skirmishes and not nearly as big of a scale.
>>75537188
Most medieval battles did not end with total annihilation but instead ended with one side routing .
Many levied soldiers had been in many, many battles. They did it because they were obligated to by their lords.
Because people weren't pussies
But plenty of battled were won because thousands of enemies routed
>>75538094
THIS
SERIOUSLY THIS
>>75537188
Understand:
>Heaven and Hell was a VERY real concept at the time, you were told you would go to heaven if you died for your king
>the enemy would often rape and mutilate your women and children, as they were taught the enemy was evil
>>75537188
>How did guys march into battle knowing that death is a near certainty?
It wasn't.
Roman legionaires were trained to hold the front line which defended the rainged weapons.
Cavalry would flank and then the frontlines would start pushing.
Pretty good survival odds.
Not sure about mid-age wars though
>>75537976
momentarily statisfaction gets dwarfed by achieving something great over a long period of time
It is only to modern man that death is the ultimate sacrifice. It is only to modern man that virtue is a foreign concept. Modern man does not have any values that transcend his own existence
>>75537188
Marching in the first line is a honor and people were competing each other for that place.
Same thing goes for carying a banner.
Because they fought for the future generations, knowing their warrior soul would be reborn in their descendant.
>>75537512
Nicely said.
In my home city around 400 man stayed to fight the Germans in 1941 so the partisans could escape.
In my opinion their reson for the fight was stupid, but in that time it probably was important or even honorful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadinja%C4%8Da
They understood that it's not all over when your physical body dies. Some believe in Judaeo-Christian Heaven and Hell, some like myself believe that your soul goes into another body and the cycle resumes.
>>75537939
this
most of medieval armys were not the perfectly lined up formations
>>75538180
It was very different, legionaries were professional soldiers and most medieval troops were levied soldiers, much more prone to running away.
But the tactics were similar with the addition of longbowman and crossbowman.
Infantry hold while cavalry brakes the line.
>>75538227
There's always ANOTHER rare steak and ANOTHER whiskey
I'm not convinced
>>75537188
back then they had women worth fighting for and countries worth dying for
Death wasn't certain.
Back in the ancient times for the Romans at least it was around 5% of their army died in each battle. Less than 2% of their army died each year.
If your army retreated you usually lost around 15-20% of your army.
The only serious thing to worry about was sickness and running out of supplies. About 25% of an army usually ended up dying on the marching.
>>75537529
>linking a video where Lindy makes arguments based entirely on anecdotal grounds
Actual primary sources confirm pikemen fighting against each other all the time. Lindy is simply full of shit.
Retarded LARPers who've never been in a fight and get their ideas of what its like from Lord of The Rings:
>>75537512
>>75537878
>>75537960
>>75537961
>>75538141
>>75538279
>>75538284
>>75538297
Actual Reasons:
>>75537303
>>75537346
>>75537415
>>75537529
>>75537575
>>75537939
>>75538068
>>75538094
>>75538129
>>75538139
>>75538367
would you be able to live with yourself though
when you open up your television and tyrone, jamal and jose have destroyed everything your ancestors worked for
everything your ancestors spent their lives crafting, all of it just so they could pass it down to you
all of it gone to ruin because you were to weak to stand up to defend it
>>75538284
oh yeah, and some people were just batshit crazy
>>75537188
They believed in god.
>>75537188
people would rather die than let the king of sweden fuck his women.
>>75538452
I'm not specifically talking about sacrificing your life, I'm talking about standing up for what you believe in
people this day are too scared to voice their opinions cause they would be called words
>>75538356
>most medieval troops were levied soldiers
No. The majority would be professionals (men at arms, mercenaries, knights etc), the peasant levy is mostly a myth.
>>75537188
I think soldiers from XVIII to WWI had to endure more shit. Surviving was practically a gamble.
>>75538180
>Roman legionaires were trained to hold the front line which defended the rainged weapons.
Wrong. They rarely used maniples of ranged infantry, they'd have a lot of velites to skirmish with and they'd have a couple of cavalry regiments in tow, but they mostly used legionnaires for the bulk of the fighting.
>>75538612
>medieval
depends when and where.
This thread is interesting.
What time period was the worst to be a soldier in?
>>75538832
Probably ours, resp. since Emperer Maximilian started peasent armies.
>>75538832
This >>75538693
>>75538054
really? i did consider drugs as a possibility but wouldnt that affect the fighting ability
>>75538800
>depends when and where.
This
After the Romans left Britain it was illegal to have a standing Army . . .. . . that's why the Anglo Saxons were brought over, to act as mercenaries.
That's why warriors were always admired and respected more than other profession in a lot of cultures.
Because they were the rare breed that would stand there and fight to the death.
>>75537188
>The German and Walloon tercios fled from the battlefield, while the Spanish remained on the field with their commander, repulsing four cavalry charges by the French and never breaking formation, despite repeated heavy artillery bombardment.
>>75538491
how many muslims have you killed today? how many wars of aggression in the middle east have your country started recently?
why is it always euros with this retarded "hurr you don't stand up" shit?
>>75538180
Romans also had professional armies and almost always outnumbered their opponents. When they faced the professional armies of other empires like Epirus, Parthia or Carthage they suffered horrendous casualties the likes of which weren't seen until the late Medieval and modern age. Did a legionary have a good chance of survival at Trebbia for instance? They also suffered horrific casualties in the civil wars of the triumvirate and the ambush in the Teutonic forest.
>>75538832
Probably about 20th century, at least with the modern day medicine has never been more advanced. As long as you're on the strongest side.
>>75538719
That's only true for mid Roman Republic. Post-Marian reforms didn't have maniples or velites. Specialists for cavalry and archery were recruited from regions with a strong tradition in them.
>>75537772
cuck
>>75538832
I would say now since the enemy can kill you without even being on the battlefield now.
>>75538612
Lies, pike lines were not made up of professional soldiers. They were levied when needed.
Men at arms were a minority, knights were a very small minority.
Professional soldier classes only came about in the late medieval times such as the english Yeoman.
Most soldiers were farmers that were levied when needed.
>>75537188
>death is a near certainty?
It wasn't.
Fights to the last man were and are incredibly rare.
Btw, here's the hymn of the guys in your pic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMkb6QgyMs
>>75538832
Pre-guns. WWI, WWII, the thrashing the Viets gave America and so on were bad, but nothing would compare to using your own physical will to defeat a man face to face. It was all you: you had to raise your heavy shield at the right time, you had to swing your weapon hard enough at the right time, and you had to watch the life leave your enemy's eyes.
>tfw the Romans were so cucked by my ancestors that they had to build a wall
Chances of getting court martialled or tried for treason or abandonment for leaving a battle and getting a sword in your head by your leaders: 100%
Chances of getting executed for draft dodging: 100%
Chances of dying in battle: Less than 100%
It's that simple.
>>75539191
>the thrashing the Viets gave America and so on were bad
The fuck are you talking about? We kicked the fuck out of the Vietnamese, especially during the Tet Offensive; the only reason we pulled out was because of political pressure in the states from protesting hippies.
>>75539051
>Specialists for cavalry and archery were recruited from regions with a strong tradition in them.
More like auxilaries from subjugated nations.
>>75538800
>>75538972
Depends on what you define as "Medieval". Most historians would hesitate to use it regarding the period (immediate post-roman england) you're talking about.
>>75539175
>Most soldiers were farmers that were levied when needed.
Pls pick up a history book Mandela-kun. You're all kinds of wrong.
>>75539051
True but I'm quite sure legionnaires still fulfilled a far more aggressive role than that poster gave them credit for. If anything they were more defensive as a republic republic with their emphasis on the Triarii being their most experienced and prestigious unit.
>>75538452
Just because you are a spineless anglocuck coward doesn't mean everyone is.
The fear of death has not always been so prevalent.
Ancient warrior cults focused their whole life to be brave and honorable and possibly die in battle.
On the other hand it is wrong to assume, that every conflict between tribes was settled bloody.
Often the tribes chose their best warriors, champions, to fight each other until one got knocked out to the ground and not necessarily killed.
Kinda like the first sportsmanship competitions.
Of course, this only works if both parties are honorable enough to accept the conditions.
>>75539476
if i was a woman id have your babies
fuck. what a post.
Death wasn't a near certainty. You've been watching too much Braveheart.
>>75537188
If I remember correctly the Dan Carlin roman history podcasts, most of the killing was done when the enemy lost their shit and turned around, not so much as long as they maintained formation.
Look up the tally at the battle of Watling Street, the Romans lost very few people even though they were outnumbered.
The History of Rome podcast is also pretty good.
>>75537188
>How did guys march into battle knowing that death is a near certainty?
It really wasn't. Casualty rates were generally in the single digits in historical warfare. Even the battle of Poitiers had less than a quarter of the French soldiers killed or wounded. The real reason is that generally if you were fighting in a war one of the following was true historically.
A. Your homeland itself was under threat and you were a peasant levy
B. You were a professional soldier such as a mercenary, knight, or Roman legionary
Later on the main reasoning was that warfare was less aggressive. Sure people died but it is a lot easier to stand in a line shooting when you have people on both sides of you doing the same than it is fighting in a long and bloody melee. There is a reason 18th century battles tended to end soon after soldiers closed with bayonets.
>>75539257
lol, another deluded american. Viets won a huge victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Watch that little sqare in the right
>B-But muh K:D ration!?!?!?!??!?!
>>75539658
explain?
youre marching into hundreds of heavily armed men swinging axes and hammers and swords.
how is death not a certainty?
>>75538832
Well, see how was war in the napoleonic wars... It was the most stupid shit you will ever see.
>>75537188
>your father abused you
>your mother just shouted at you because she was all nerves because of keeping your dozens sisters and brothers at bay
>you were shit poor
>you never leave your village
>your food was barley with water
>you get drunk at a feast
>instead of fucking the farmers daughter you got dragooned into service
>you get payed
>you eat barley with water and a REAL sausage in it
>you survive your first battle and even kill a other man
>you see how the veterans (which are always in the first lines) get the best loot and how based they are
>try to be like them
>go into the next battle into the frontline
>scary as fuck
>suddenly the veteran next to you gives you a bottle
>drink
>tfw that stuff bruns through your throat
>take another slug and another
>everything will be fine... at least you would never return to that godforsaken village
>>75538097
Shut up faggot
>>75539726
Most sane men ran away when they saw certain death coming at them like that.
>>75539281
not always the Romans hired a lot of mercenaries during the republic. Auxiliaries didn't really come to the fore until the Imperial age.
>>75537188
>>75537512
>>75538284
you all massively overestimate how dangerous this was
look at casualty statistics for 1700s battles, even the most dangerous battle only killed %10 of the losing army and in medieval warfare it was even less dangerous since most medieval armies were peasants put there to inflate the size of the army. Most parts of a medieval army would rout before even going into battle
>>75539476
>M-Muh ancestors were fearless berserkers because that History tv show Vikings tells me they were
>Hurrr Durrr back in the days....
>>75539860
i really hope this whole "routing" thing is just a meme. because it will ruin my faith in humanity.
>>75537188
"Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight."
>>75538832
Napoleonic wars till WW1
Pre napolenic wars the tactics were similar but the wars were rarely total wars. Soldiers and so on were expansive. Then came the french revolution and suddenly the people wanted to kill each other for free because of "muh nation".
WW2 was not worse then WW1, at least for the soldiers. The difference in WW2 is that suddenly you have had MASSIVE civilian casulties, because of tech and ideoligy.
>>75538963
The celts used to get absolutely lit up before battles
>>75539860
Its not the same across the board. The crusades had very attritional battles though obviously the heat, dehydration and sickness (Many crusaders caught Malaria crossing the Danube) played a part.
The 1700s are completely different seeing as an established code for warfare was accepted across Europe. If a soldier surrendered he had to be kept as a prisoner and the massacre of a routing army was considered very distasteful.
>>75539257
>WE PULLED OUT JUST BECAUSE OUR PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT
Sounds like definition of loss to me
>>75540063
i love this
>>75537188
they were Christcucks
dying was preferable to living in medieval times especially if you believed in heave which is why the church had to make suicide a sin
basically war was just God approved suicide
>>75537188
A nice inspiring speech does the trick
>>75539191
>muh ancestors
Ugh I thought only Americans did this. Stfu about your Pappy, he was a bogan
>>75540003
Nigger if I get dragged out of my peasant shithole and told to kill and face probable death in the name of a king or other entity that I don't even know, I would run away at the first chance I got. The only time when peasants would fight zealously is when their own village or town was at risk of being captured or raided.
>>75537772
BEADY
>>75537188
Death was almost never a near certainty UNLESS you ran, and everyone knew it. Routs were the source of most casualties in battle, as panicking, fleeing soldiers are easy prey for cavalry.
Generally speaking most battles, even in the age of cannons and gunpowder, had pretty low casualties unless one side completely fucked up and got obliterated.
>>75540067
>established code for warfare was accepted across Europe.
It always surprises me how civil Europeans can be haha. I would never expect East Asian or Arabian armies to have such codes let alone the natives in Australia and Americas.
>>75537188
Not being called a faggot.
/thread
https://youtu.be/DmTgpsvkqt8
>>75540003
Fear is a very humane thing, especially back in those days were supersticious thoughts were prevalent. And that is why some generals and some armies managed to win some battles with seemingly impossible odds.
For example this man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuno_%C3%81lvares_Pereira
Routed castillian armies almost by himself because of the aura that surrounded him as a man sent by god. When castillian soldiers faced him they almost automatically routed. Kind of like in colonial India when Indian Maharaja armies faced the brits they would automatically rout because of the aura that surrounded the brits.
>>75539724
>Watch that little sqare in the right
If you did then you wouldn't make such a stupid comment.
Average lifespan in the middle ages is ~30 years.
My guess is people die either of famine/disease or war. Some people prefer dying in the battlefield.
>>75539191
>3 million dead gooks
>60k dead Americans
kek they THRASHED us bro
>>75540197
I guess no speeches were given when you faced the emus
>>75540063
>>75540161
yeah really no evidence that the celts did this. There isn't any evidence of celts preparing drugs and its incredibly unlikely they'd do so in the difficult environments of the alps and while riding chariots. Sure they'd get worked up and pumped by chanting and after they collected heads but drugs don't factor. There aren't many native hallucinogenic substances in Europe either.
>>75537188
>Surely survival instinct kicks in at some point and you turn and run the other way? What was in their minds to hold the line?
I'm pretty sure that in medievel battles huge numbers of people did run away when it came to the crunch. In retrospect it's the only smart move to make.
>>75540197
>get dragged from your numerous family and wife by your lord, just because he felt insulted in some way
>You will not be able to help in the crops, and your sons are still too young, so hunger will be almost certain
>The lord will probably not fight in the whole battle, and he will only die if he falls from his horse
>But he did a good speech, so that means i will die and condemn my family to hunger and poverty
>>75540399
>There aren't many native hallucinogenic substances in Europe either.
Liberty caps grow everywhere in northern Europe bro.
>>75539860
>Most parts of a medieval army would rout before even going into battle
Thats called desertion
>>75540496
No it's called a tactical retreat.
>>75540292
>North Vietnam survived, and overran South vietnam shortl after american withdrawl
>Trust me guise, it was a overwhelming American Visctory
USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>75540486
right go take some of those then negotiate a chariot around an alpine battlefield.
>>75537188
It was paid work that didn't involve much farming. Also some degree of loyalty and nationalism (mostly just money and necessity though).
>>75540226
>bulgaro-serb mongrels who lie about being greek have no honor
how surprising
>>75540399
Everything in history is wildly exaggerated.
Irony is the more accurate account of it is from the losers.
>>75540551
>tactical retreat
No, it's called advancing in another direction
>>75540371
You won every battle and lost the war.
You know what the vierts said when you guys came to them: "You have clocks but we have time."
>>75540592
>nationalism
>Middle ages
wat?
>>75540616
Shortening the supply distance, please
so conclusively, death wasnt as big a deal as it is now?
>>75540678
They forgot their sword in the camp. They will be right back
>>75540484
widows/orphans didnt starve. churches made sure of it. it is much easier to give to the poor when they arent subhuman.
Keeping discipline and morale strong was akways key to winning battles.
Throughout history, differnt civilizations found their own individual solutions to achieve both:
- In the roman legions, it was acaoldiers obligation to kill the soldier to his left if he tried to desert the battle. If he didn't do this, then it was up to the next soldier to the right of both to do so. This tradition is upheld to this day at Westpoint, where there are no supervisors present during exams, but cadets are obliged to report classmates to their left if they try to cheat
- In the medievals, hostage taki g was big business. Noble knights were rarely killed, as they could be freed via ransom.
- Vikings, Muslims etc.: both believe(d) that it was the greatest honour to die on the battlefield, as they'd then go straight to Valhalla/a goat stable
- Renaissance: many armies were made up of soldiers of fortune. Machiavelli wrote extensively about the illoyality such business-like swords and pikes for hire showed during battle
- English empire: one reason coted for why british soldiers wore red coats during battle is that it would be difficult for them to flee the skirmish, since they could barely hide due to their high visibility.
>>75540662
/pol/locks dont diferentiate between patriotism and nationalism.
>>75540399
Granted we learned about celts during the first semester of my year 11 ancient history class which was 13 years ago, I really held onto this. Pretty sure they got blind drunk before battles though didn't they? This thread kills the fantasy.
>>75540605
>honor is fighting for a lord who dragged you out of your home and told you to kill, while your family and children starve to death in a fatherless home
You serbs used to have spines.
>>75539021
finally someone said it
>>75540662
Not as we know it, but there would certainly be some kind of bond between men of specific nations (seen as early as the Iliad).
Religion made people think as long as they were on the right side life or death cometh their reward was assured.
Also in the medieval ages where the peasant life expectancy was 30-40 years from disease and malnutrition a battlefield death wasn't such a horrifying death.
In return you got good food and money for a peasant and a bit of reputation/prestige.
Also most soldiers/armies didn't see battle. Most wars consist of seiges and slaughters with a sprinkling of one sided battles.
>>75540763
>widows/orphans didnt starve. churches made sure of it.
Source?
>>75539724
>>B-But muh K:D ration!?!?!?!??!?!
K:D ratio decides whether a war was a thrashing. Vietnam was a political loss, not a military one. It's well established fact that VC couldn't carry on the war if Tet wasn't a success, and it wasn't; but what it accomplished was liberal media taking pictures of damage sustained from the attack and blowing it out of proportion to destroy any faith anybody might have had in the war.
>>75540096
Considering you're a country that has been raped more times than your slut of a mother I don't think you're one to talk about the extent of losses in a war, Poland.
>>75537188
Some had to die. In some cases it could have an neighbouring kingdoms army seeking to conquer your home so self survival.
>>75538452
Nelson would slap the shit out of you, retard. Honor and other values were very real, and even unprofessional soldiers showed acts of bravery.
Money, fame or faith? I don't know if this is legend or fact but it's said that the Caroleans were fanatical Christians so zealous that they were convinced to not fire until the they could look the enemy in the eye (point blank considering all the smoke?) and this helped create a fearsome reputation. Also that there was no use running from a battle because if God wanted you to be hit by a bullet, even hiding behind a tree that destined bullet would find you and kill you. Something like that, probably exaggerated but I wouldn't discount religion - just look at mudslimes today.
>>75540561
What chariots? Celts just charged into battle like the barbarians they were
>>75540869
very informative. thank you.
>>75540652
win every battle, lose the war.. essentially lost the PR game and support for the war because communist subversion from the left had recently found its way into television. korea didnt have this problem, televisions werent as widespread... no commies had yet to worm their way onto television yet.
just imagine how similar to s. korea they'd be by now if the south vietnamese had survived independently... it's very sad.
>>75540614
Actually archaeology has demonstrated that history can be under-representative of the reality. The thing with history is that there's a truth in all historical texts but it might nto be what you expected. Its an insight into the minds of people in the past. In the future people may look at twitter feeds and recognise broad trends like social justice, celebrity fandom and even historical events like the Paris bombings despite much of it being utter rubbish.
>>75537188
You have to think about cost/benefit.
>run away
>get killed either way
or
>fight your ass off
>get paid
>loot
>possibly become a hero
>religious beliefs
Why do you think religion was always such an important part of primitive warriors?
Theyd go into battle KNOWING that god was on their side, protecting them. If you are entirely sure of the outcome, why fear death?
>>75539724
He was saying that on the level of the average American soldier, you weren't getting your shit kicked in by comparison to being a soldier on the other side, so for the matter at hand kill death ratio is pretty damn important actually. They endured worse than our boys but they didn't have a government which was trying to appease hippies and leftists either.
>>75540554
Learn to read Alberta Barbarossa; nobodies claiming it was a victory over all; merely that our men died less and suffered less by comparison to the enemy. Even their greatest political victories came with huge casualties by comparison to our own.
>>75540856
>be some kind of bond between men of specific nations
>middle ages
wat?
Are you implying that men form oxfordshire had some kind of spiritual bond with men from Newcastle? Or with men from Cornwall?
>seen as early as the Iliad
>Using a epic as some sort of historical proof
>A epic that was written in the ancient ages for people known for their highly exagerating accounts
>>75539021
>>75540849
You guys must be fucking baiting. The whole measurement of national cuck status is by how much the people themselves are willing to put up with lefty bullshit. It's why we rip on Swedes, Germans, French and British but Americans just pretend you aren't also cucked when someone points it out that you're obviously just as bad as us.
>>75537188
because
DEUS FUCKING VULT
>>75541012
Victors tend to not mention their shortcomings.
>>75537188
Read On Killing by David Grossman. It's a combination of conditioning and peer pressure as well as several other factors. Militaries have known how to condition people to kill, and be killed for centuries.
>>75540931
Retard.
>>75540887
>Vietnam was a political loss, not a military one.
There is no distinction bro. Military is used for political reasons. A political loss is a military loss too.
>but what it accomplished was liberal
>MUH LIBRULSS!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
So you are telling me that Nazi Germany won the war because it had a High K.D ratio and barbarossa was a sucess?
>>75540875
i suppose you are just unfamiliar with western customs and history, the central role christianity played in every european nation like the one you invaded... as an immigrant you should read some of it. if you arent a student of history, why are you on /pol/? dont you have some europeans to rob? it must be prime pick-pocket time in your neighborhood about now.
>>75537188
>What was in their minds to hold the line?
Knowing that they would be run down and killed by cavalry if they broke. Most casualties came when one side broke.
Also knowing that the enemy have lots of gold and silver in their supply lines to pay for their soldiers, gold and silver that you will get some of if you win.
And Valhalla
>>75540869
mostly christianity... an army of atheists wont fight... a country of atheists wont defend itself.
>>75541205
>nice projection
Still asking for source. Your fee fees are not a source.
>>75541070
Do you have any proof to the contrary? Do you have any proof at all other than your "feels"?
>>75541073
you ever been to america 'mate'? you clearly don't know shit. there are plently of non-cucked parts of the u.s. you just have to venture more than 5 miles from a major city. stop pretending like you know shit.
>>75541202
>no distrinction
well a military loss is when your positions get overrun and all your soldiers die... a political loss is when you withdraw your army for no good reason.
i realize you are just being a contrarian because you are a brown immigrant with little knowledge... but there is a clear distinction. congrats on being literate though, it's a good start!
>>75541202
The argument was in reference to this>>75539191
>The thrashing the Viets gave America. This isnt about winning or losing. This is a discussion about K/D
You fucking moorish fuck. USA and its allies overwhelmingly thrashed the military capacity of the Commies. That is not in question. Neither is the loss of the war. What is in question now is your fucking reading comprehension.
I'm pleasantly surprised at how many posters gave correct answers, of which really boils down to discipline. Breaking ranks was the worst thing anyone could do back then.
>>75541140
'History is written by the victors' is perhaps the most inaccurate cliche there is.
History is written by those with an incentive to record it. The Huns were victors for example yet all we know about them is written by Roman sources. The Normans and Vikings also won in a sense in the wars with the Saxons however most of what we know about them comes from Saxon sources. Its only really true in the cases of classical studies which is where the phrase came from in which Roman authors and also Shakespeare in his portrayal of the wars of the roses could be very biased and wanted to appease the populace and rulers of the day. In the Roman case they often made a very concerted attempt to portray these battles fairly. After the library of Alxeandria burnt down we sadly don't hear the other side, but when we do it appears Roman scholars genuinely tried to reflect the truth as best as they could.
>>75541202
It was both, he's taking out south vietnamese losses for the lulz like all americans do.
overall k/d was pretty close to 1
>>75541070
It's not spiritual at all. When you are led by an English army, fighting with English troops, led by an English general, fighting for English territory, how is it unreasonable to assume that you some of the men in the army are fighting for people in England? I don't mean nationalism in the modern sense, but I'm sure a national identity still existed within the conscience of some European nations, and I'm sure that the people of that nation would want to defend their culture and people, and what else is nationalism but this?
>>75540887
>K:D ratio decides whether a war was a thrashing
No it does not, some nations have strong leadership that can conscript as much manpower as it wants. Some nations lack the ability or mapower and compensate it with higher quality. We might see the latter one as "superiour" or "more civilized" but that does not mean it is less effective, especially on the defence. By your logic Nazis gave Soviets a good thrashing.
In modern asymetrical conflicts such as the vietnam war, the defender wins, when he convinces attacker he is not worth the blood. Viets managed that, therefore they won and US lost.
>>75541526
Poor greentext but whatever.
>>75541325
Any proof of what? There was no concept of nationalism in Middle ages. The main identifying charateristic was religion In northern Iberia people spoke a different language every few dozen miles ffs.
Nationalism only appeared in late 19th century.
It was not uncommon for a foreign king to rule. French kings ruled Bohemia. French kings ruled England. French counts ruled Early Portugal. Latin Kings ruled Constantinople.
>>75537188
If you were lucky enough to have a horse and some decent armor, people went out of their way to capture you alive to ransom your sorry ass.
The regular guy did it for loot, and to not look like a total pussy in front of his comrades.
Plus, if you deserted and got caught, you suffered way more than just getting killed during a fight.
>>75541302
>projection
not so much projection than blaringly obvious... just noticing your not being at work... your lack of european history knowledge... your anti-west attitude. i suppose some of these guys enjoy the argument... but discussing history with a barely literate immigrant is just painful. i just hope you learn something really. you should lurk more really instead of embarrassing yourself.
>>75538832
Yeah I'd say Napoleonic Wars - Vietnam
>>75541526
>>75541435
Ok, sure, you trashed the viets. Whatever suits your patriotic feels.
also this
>>75541552
>>75537188
This reminds me of an "historian" on youtube who said that battle of pikemen probably didn't exist contrary to what History says because it's so terrifying to be on the frontline that nobody would do it.
Sure, the line infantry was so much better...
In Switzerland, we have a legendary hero called Arnold von Winkelried who, according to the story, said to his men :"Take care of my wife and my children" and literally jumped on the ennemy's pikes in order to open a breach for his fellow coutrymen.
Here is battle from a movie where you can actually see tercios in action. It gives you an idea :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMEnBHef96c
>>75539748
>suddenly the veteran next to you gives you a bottle
>drink
>tfw that stuff bruns through your throat
>take another slug and another
Strong stuff, ja? Fat Karl's special recipe. You're one of us now kid, you can handle it.
>>75538284
If your ancestors could see the cuckery going on in the new Caliphate you call Germany, they would probably have killed them selves, you should too.
>>75537188
Nobler ideals.
>>75537188
Very little deaths took place from direct confrontation.
In fact most deaths in anitque battles took place when one side broke and ran, leaving them open to be cut down at will
>>75537188
Like this.
>>75538367
you're nothing but cattle, shut the fuck up, there is no greater satisfaction and fulfillment than meaning than simply trying to please your 5 senses
>>75539748
all infantry should be drunk as fuck
I guess it's something like "well I'm here now and if I try to get away the others will shank my ass, so I might as well try killing someone"
Also harvest. Peasant levies wanted to get the fighting done as quickly as possible so they could go back and harvest.
>>75541292
Belief in the afterlife full stop. Romans, Greeks and Vikings all believed a battlefield death would be looked upon kindly by thier god/gods.
>>75541849
>>75541892
>>75541895
how do you know this?
>>75541679
>be immigrant
>barely literate
>NEET welfare bucks cuz white people
>go on /pol/
>troll history thread
>glutton for punishment
>hate west and christians so much
>embarrass myself and my country
>oh shit it's almost dark
>head down to subway station to pick-pockets
>>75541948
In the two world wars they used to hand out alcohol to the troops of the Royal Hungarian Army before battle. Killing is easier when you're a bit more relaxed.
>>75537188
>Surely survival instinct kicks in at some point and you turn and run the other way?
Yes, that's called "breaking the line". It's inevitable that one sides lines will break and run. That's the goal, for their guys to run before yours do.
>>75541740
>>75541948
My grandfather was fought near Leningrad during WW2. He said that those Veterans (he was drafted '43) were always drunk as fuck during battle. Shells exploded near their trench, and while my grandfather just clung to the earth, the vet near him just stood at the MG42 like a tree. And when the Russians tried to zerg rush their positioon the veterans simply started to pull the trigger. While the young ones were still in shell shock.
>>75542005
Well the entire historical and archaeological profession has made a point of studying military history for centuries? Its also happening as we speak.
>Belief in the Almighty
>Belief in the glory of your nation
Still took huge balls tough
>>75542242
They were also given ecstasy, endorphines and amphetomines.
>>75542271
will i ever know what thats like?
>>75542242
>you will never kill Bolsheviks while being drunk
Existence is suffering.
>>75542242
methamphetamin?
>>75538996
The tercios were really the most based bunch of soldiers in existence
>>75541626
>your anti-west attitude
In what?
> barely literate immigrant
>posting with a american flag
Americans do not have any concept of irony, don't they?
>>75541637
> Vietnam
wat?
>>75539726
Because you'd be armed also, pussy. Well maybe not you, I'm sure you'd just curl up into a ball, blow your rape whistle and wait for a policeman to arrive.
>>75537512
>From the country famous for weed and prostitution.
>>75542344
CITATIONS!
really want this to be true
>>75541973
>romans (failed pre-christian society)
>greeks (failed pre-christian society)
>vikings (failed pre-christian society)
granted the romans did get christianity towards the end... but why are you trying to remove christianity from it? nothing came close to the moral builder that christianity gave the european in battle. that's the problem with you brits... ashamed of your fucking history and western christendom to begin with.
>>75537188
belief that dying in their overlords' wars guarantees them a spot in heaven
>>75542271
>Belief in the glory of your nation
>middle ages
Why are /pol/ posters so ignorant?
>>75542242
ever heard of the term "marschierpulver"
or
"fliegerzuckerl"
>>75542394
>suffered horrendous casualties
>Spain became irrelevant in the european theatre 50 years later
>had to steal many of their firearms
yeah really 'based'
>>75542459
google pervitin. It was neither extacy nor endorphines, it was methamphetamin.
>>75542114
Not an argument.
>>75542416
> you'd be armed also, pussy.
>I'm a thogh guy posting on 4chan kiddo. You don't know what i have been trough. I'm not like all the other girls
>>75542394
From what I read, old-timey Spanish mercenaries always demanded to be put to the most dangerous parts of the formation because honour.
Based removers of couscous and tamale.
>>75542459
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334397/Nazis-narcotics-How-Hitlers-henchmen-stayed-alert-war-taking-CRYSTAL-METH.html
amphetomines and endorphines were also used though not very well understood.
>>75542583
He is american. Leave him. I don't judge them the same way i judge other posters. Kind of like my autistic cousin.
>>75542344
>slaughtering people on ecstasy
that would be weird
>>75542583
lol, wasnt even talking to you... but i guess you are an immigrant and took offense. christ almighty... why does /pol/ get so worked up replying to illiterate muslim niggers?
>>75537415
>cannons on battlefield
>medieval ages
>>75542344
>>75542374
>>75542545
Sure thing.
But the stuff should also worked on my Opa and the other then noobs too. They were jsut scared to death their first time. After that they simply filled their canteen with vodka instead of water.
>>75542636
IIRC meth itself was invented by the US as a drug to enhance soldiers. It's just a slightly altered adrenaline. They had to stop using it when they realized it was a narcotic though.
Could you guys imagine being a muslim in the late 600's? Back when rome was still top dog and i think it was before the west fell too.
How were muslims treated at this point?
How did romans feel about muzzies?
>>75538832
WW 1?
>>75542726
> i guess you are an immigrant and took offense
>posting with a american flag
"Americans"...
>>75540767
>goat stable
Kek
>>75542664
well mechanized rapid assaults (blitzkrieg) meant the soldiers were pushed beyond their usual limits in a stressful environment and without much nourishment. Cigarettes were supplied by most governments to teh army and it wasn't uncommon for soldiers in WWI and II to smoke 50 a day.
>>75542664
I have heard from a friend. One of his friends from military who is a butcher takes ectasy and slaughters animals.
>>75542663
if you had a single descent response to any history related question to anyone here... i wouldnt single you out... but you are clearly an immigrant and have a well refined hatred of europeans and the west in general. it's just a travesty that you exist... the personification of the failures of liberal socialism.
>>75537961
this desu
>>75538327
They understood? Oh my bad can I have the proof you have access too
>>75537188
>How did guys march into battle knowing that death is a near certainty?
religion is a hell of a drug
also desertion was punished with death and mutilation, as well as bringing dishonor on your family and/or getting them exiled.
>>75542782
>Rome
>top dog in the 600s
I think you need to brush up on your history, the sandniggers did try to sack Rome in 846, but they didn't make it bast the Aurelian wall
>>75542782
>Back when rome was still top dog
Nah, before the arab invasions both the Eastern roman empire and the Sassanid empire exausted themselves in a long bloddy war. Also they suffered from a plague that slaughtered Roman empire population
>>75542892
How the fuck is that possible? Ecstasy is literally "Love - The Pill" and makes you want to hug shit and enjoy music. Is it because you kebabs are savages?
>>75542442
>from the country of famous for paki rape gangs and a muslim mayor
>>75542811
>post irrelevant meme that doesnt pertain to discussion
>reiterate the flag i post under
>completely ignore every point made to me
>not a troll
/pol/ is just thristy... the first subhuman immigrant to troll them derails any proper discussion
>18 replies
>>75540393
Macedonia bringing the hear!!! Ejjjj jebemti!!!!
>>75541417
Right after you, I live in wales which is 95% white you fucking faggot and the UK has nowhere near as many inner culture wars going on as the US yet you yanks have the audacity to act like we're more cucked than you, what a joke.
This thread makes me so happy that I'm from the culture that rendered that kind of retarded warfare obsolete, because suddenly a ten year old with zero combat training could do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twuiF2Ft8bk
>>75542782
Also a enourmous religious zeal, and a aura od invencibility they had after the initial string of victories
>>75542911
Sure mate.
>>75542771
did yours also stay several years in a gulag?
>>75542514
cuck
>>75537188
At the time, it's aasier to murder people who don't go to war. Hell, they could wipe out an entire village just as a warning to the others.
>>75542811
so being a protein type structure does DNA get broken down by the enzymes that release in the cells after death or is it during cooking that the heat denatures it that it gets eliminated? Remember that horse meat scare in Europe and how scientists found horse DNA in the meat so it got me thinking if DNA is recoverable from cooked meats.
>>75538832
ez, today. IED fucks you out of live, built by some sandnigger
>>75543180
thanks for the answer.
one more question, why do you tripfag here?
>>75543301
Would they be testing cooked meat or raw meat
>>75538612
Majority were conscripts, that only had spears, just villagers, etc. Hollywood doesn't show them because "muh shiny armor". "muh medieval romanticism".
>>75538094
^ this. Once your formation is broken, you're fucked.
Panic and fear spreads.
This is why you see some battle statistics of much smaller armies beating larger ones with very little casualties on their side.
>>75543087
The pill he take has different name. Probably it makes more aggresive. If we were savage there would be no macedon in the world, my friend. Remind 500 years.
>>75542497
I'm not trying to remove anything.
Just pointing out that Christianity isn't the only religion that promises it's warriors rewards in the afterlife.
>>75537188
The love of their people and liberty.
You will do the same when it comes down to it, white man.
" Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods"
>>75543340
How else would i trigger conservashits here?
I don't know how to VPN, so it leaves me to tripfagging
>>75543389
Always a classic.
>>75542459
that's where the idea of stimpacks came from
>>75543464
>a ancient age epic
>considered as a historical doxument in any way
Also that is not middle ages
>>75537188
>How did guys march into battle knowing that death is a near certainty?
Because they weren't faggots.
People joined armies for basically the same reasons as today, protecting their homes, loot, adventure most people never went more than 100km from their birthplace, why they didn't flee once the battle started has been mentioned, on Killing is a good explanation basically they didn't want to let down their peers, it's important to remember that real fighting is nothing like movies Romans would cycle the front ranks, musket shootouts didn't happen at close range like the Patriot often at all, almost no bayonet charges struck home one side almost always ran before contact the vast majority of loses were from disease
>>75542745
What part of "nevermind" did you not understand?
Also very few battles ended in annihilation. Cannae (butchering a whole host for hours) is an exception not a rule. In ancient greek hoplite combat for example you would have 2-3 % casualties and then a retreat: men cannot be replaced easily, populations were smaller as well, much smaller and citizen classes even more so.
>>75543488
topkek
Fucking Antiochus, what was he thinking (assuming he was thinking at all)
>>75543555
t. Bloco de Esquerda voter.
>>75543435
I guess the meaning of "ecstasy" is so diluted it can mean MDMA-based or Amphetamine-based all the same. So thank you Ottoman Overlord, for only taking our firstborns to fight for you, and not genociding the lot of us.
