Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Which would you choose?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Which would you choose?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

This isn't really philosophical which is why I placed it here in the General Discussion section. I guess this is something I've wondered about in the past but I've never really asked anyone else their opinion on the matter.

There are only 2 choices
You must choose 1

If you had to be in a battle, would you rather:
(1) Be in one during the age in which armies lined up and shot at each other and used cannons?
Or
(2) Be in one during the age in which armies lined up and had swords, bows and arrows, and catapult ?

I think, given those 2 choices and only those 2 choices, I would probably choose (2) because I feel like my chances of survival would be better

I guess maybe it boils down to the fact that I can't stand not being able to see something coming(I do not enjoy being snuck up on whereas some people aren't necessarily bothered by it) and I think my ability to see things coming would be greater in (2) than (1)

@Amperage,

1, because I wouldn't be much good with a sword and could probably figure out how to shoot a gun and I bet their medicine would be better, or I could school the doc on sterilizing his tools.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;118411 wrote:

1, because I wouldn't be much good with a sword and could probably figure out how to shoot a gun and I bet their medicine would be better, or I could school the doc on sterilizing his tools.

nice. I didn't even think about medicine.

@Amperage,

Hypotheticals are nonsense to reason with, and even more so when located in the past... Everyone in the past is dead...Why not ask: Would you rather be dead than alive???...

@Fido,

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;118441 wrote:

That is just pure awesome! I have nothing else to say. I have not necessarily studied to a great extent in the subjects but I've always ad an avid love and appreciation for all things history. Military history especially, if for no other reasons than the strategy and tactics and just the sheer bravery involved

One thing that always blew my mind is how any one particular warrior was able to establish himself(as a great warrior, or historically etc.). When you consider the fact that in those days, with so much going on seemingly from all sides, being on open ground in terms of not really being able to hide behind barriers in a lot of instance, that even the most skilled warrior would basically need a boat load of luck to survive.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;118441 wrote:

But one thing I love the most about this time period are the uniforms. That anyone could fight in these ornate uniforms is beyond me. Hussars for example (which almost every single nation had in one form or another) were dressed so ornately and so on that I really wonder if they wore what they did in battle. As a matter of interest, look up "Husaria" or "winged hussars" and you tell me if that is not out of this world. I seriously could go on.

Why did I never hear of these before and why aren't there movies and video games about them?

I was leaning towards 1 anyway.

@Amperage,

There is a very good movie about the Battle of Waterloo, some of which can be seen (at least the battle part) on youtube. In addition to the pretty uniforms (necessary in an age of dirty gunpowder) one must not forget that these armies marched to some of the greatest music written.

Muskets were very unreliable weapons, hence the necessity of forming line before shooting, and rigourous training in the use of volleys (muskets were actually more effective when used as a spear---bayonets were very long). Tests run by having a formed double line shoot into a large sheet at different ranges showed that at medium and further distances, the chances of getting hit were surprisingly slim.

@Amperage,

In either historical case, the ways that weaponry harmed the body far exceeded medical knowledge of how to deal with it at the time. Nasty. Not nearly as fun as a video game.

@Ahhhhhz,

Amperage,Deckard,

Honestly, when I first saw a picture of them (the Hussaria), I thought it was a fantasy drawing of a knight/native American Indian. Come to find out that these guys were still being used even through the Napoleonic wars. Seriously though, they look almost like a Aztec/Spanish conquistador to me still. As far as hussars are concerned, you would be surprised how much of these guys influence still remains in popular clothing, media, etc.

Jgweed,

The movie you may be referring to is Waterloo (1970) starring Rod Steiger, Orson Welles, etc. Excellent movie, great battle scene. Incidentally, the last part of the movie where the Old Guard is cornered byt the Allies and the French are asked to surrender, and some line officer yells "F-udge off" is actually true to a certain extent. I wonder if anyone has determined who said it and what was exactly said. LOL! Another good movie very close to that is "Napoleon: An Epic Life" made by A&E a few years back. Very good historical bio-pic of Napoleon.

Also, the music was very neat. Incidentally, here is a link to a sample of music from the time period.

Military Heritage Music - Sound Clips

And also if anyone is curious about uniforms, weapons, and what not, the main page of that site has links to all sorts of stuff that are neat to look through (and even buy).

Military Heritage Weapons and Uniforms (Swords, Muskets and other Sutler Goods)

@Amperage,

There is no finer example of nobility than the last squares of the Old Guard refusing to surrender when surrounded by cannon, nor of spirit when they stubbornly defended the retreating columns trying to return from Moscow.

@VideCorSpoon,

After the battle of Waterloo the local peasant cut the throats of those injured and robbed their bodies.

One british officer commented that the battle field was covered in love letters from the french dead who in life had clasped them in their hands, only to relinquish there hold on them at death.

The screaming of the dying horses all through the night, after the battle was more horrendous than cries of the wounded men, a soldier recalled. When asked "why did you not finish the horses off" he replied "we had, had our fill of death, no one could bring themselves to kill again". For years afterwards those injured at Waterloo could be seen begging in the streets of England, with no concern from a grateful nation. Its so glorious this stuff called war.

@xris,

Jgweed,

A particular scene from the movie Waterloo you may find interesting (especially around 5:00). In no way is much of this accurate in terms of the scal and so on, and especially the very pansy-ish British acting, but it's still a neat clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VceCMPXskk&feature=related

A particularly cool and historically some-what accurate interpretation of Napoleons return from exile. Again, flowery British production and inconsistencies a plenty, but still a pretty neat representation of the event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffeOvwBYkf4&feature=related

@VideCorSpoon,

You can smell the cordite, see the sweat oozing from those about to enter battle. Men are dying too easily and you can hear their cries to god for salvation. Mother, mother cries a young drummer as his life ebbs away. Horses thrashing on the ground their entrails mixed with their riders. Ghostly figures mix with the living still intent on killing.

Its now your turn to advance against the enemy , your knees are knocking and you fear they can be seen. Young Smithy drops before he can make one step forward , you feel a need to **** and you do. Charlies blood suddenly covers your face and you rush forward , screaming revenge, you recover and kill.

No ide rather stay at home. Ive been there in my dreams very often ,it aint nice.

@xris,

I like military history, but I agree with xris. The military is designed to appeal to us, promises of glory and honor and such. We love to hear the stories. But we have to acknowledge that in reality war is hell.

@xris,

xris;118523 wrote:

After the battle of Waterloo the local peasant cut the throats of those injured and robbed their bodies.

One british officer commented that the battle field was covered in love letters from the french dead who in life had clasped them in their hands, only to relinquish there hold on them at death.

The screaming of the dying horses all through the night, after the battle was more horrendous than cries of the wounded men, a soldier recalled. When asked "why did you not finish the horses off" he replied "we had, had our fill of death, no one could bring themselves to kill again". For years afterwards those injured at Waterloo could be seen begging in the streets of England, with no concern from a grateful nation. Its so glorious this stuff called war.

After the repulse of the Spanish Armada the queen kept her fleet as sea until half of them starved to death because she did not have the funds to pay them...Thanks from her Highness

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;118580 wrote:

I like military history, but I agree with xris. The military is designed to appeal to us, promises of glory and honor and such. We love to hear the stories. But we have to acknowledge that in reality war is hell.

agreed. ----------

@Amperage,

Victory, uttered his last words, "Thank God I have done my duty."

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;118618 wrote:

There was a famous samurai who died when a ninja hid in his latrine for three days and then stabbed him when he sat down. Hellish for both I'd imagine.

Quote:

And as the history of warfare shows, if war is hell, then there are varying degrees and layers of hell. Dante Alighieri should have written a book on war. LOL! The battlefield then is a lot more survivable than it is now. Also, casualty rates are much steeper now than they were a long time ago due to advances in technology and so on. What was unacceptable to lose 100 men in the course of an entire battle in the 16th century skirmish is an acceptable now (or more like in the past century because for some reason losing a few now is like losing a regiment a long time ago as public perception on war has changed).

Is this true? I'd imagine small tribal wars had the highest casualty rates, since to lose 5 men from a band of 50 is 10%. For a long time more soldiers died from disease and such as well, we have much improved on that.

Here's a chart which seems to support that:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/table1.gif

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;118641 wrote:

There was a famous samurai who died when a ninja hid in his latrine for three days and then stabbed him when he sat down. Hellish for both I'd imagine.

Jebediah;118641 wrote:

Is this true? I'd imagine small tribal wars had the highest casualty rates, since to lose 5 men from a band of 50 is 10%. For a long time more soldiers died from disease and such as well, we have much improved on that.

Here's a chart which seems to support that:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/table1.gif

Battle by R.G. Grant). There were 70,000 French and 85,000 Allies. The accepted total of casualties durring the battle (including wounded) were 8,300 French and 16,000 Allies. The French had 11.86% casualty rate and the Allies had 18.80% casualty rate. The sum total of those involved (155,000) and those killed (24,300) results in 15.68% casualties for the battle of Austerlitz. Now take Verdun (one helluva outlier in terms of the frame you provided) had 1.2 million (est) combatants taking part. Casualties for both sides amounted to 755,000. That's 63% of all those taking part in the battle. In light of that, I still stand behind at least a small portion of my previous statement that causality rates may be steeper now than a few hundred years ago. Of course, that's an outlier, so go figure. LOL! But very good point though.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Which would you choose?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Which would you choose?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know