Which would you choose?

@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,

Great hypothetical! LOL! I was attempting to post something directly related to this topic earlier today.

If I had to choose between 18th to mid 19th century linear battles (#1) or more static medieval style of warfare (#2), I would honestly choose #1. I don't care really about the chances of survival or what not, I just love the style of warfare during that particular time period. Honestly, philosophy doesn't even share a modicum of the level of interest I share with Napoleonic military history and even a more narrowed favoritism of British military history.

The weapons used during the time period are fantastic. From the multiple patterns of Brown Bess smoothbore muskets to the more interesting Baker and Ferguson rifles, you have to appreciate military technology of that day, and how insane it really was. Think about it, one of the primary reasons why you stand in a line and deliver your fire in volleys is because your weapon had the accuracy of? well? nothing? they just were not accurate at all. But its out of those inadequacies that military ingenuity came. The British developed platoon firing to essentially provide a constant rate of fire. Amazing considering the even the best infantryman could fire around 3 shots a minute.

And even as far as weapons were concerned, the tactics developed during that time period were amazing. Light Infantry were essentially pioneered by the British during the seven years war? essentially laying the foundation for skirmishing lines. Unit organization and standardization was apparently an impossible feat as far as the British were concerned (Duke of York). But almost every country had their own particular linear formation strategy. The French had a particularly interesting concept that instead of meeting in standard lines, they met in thin but deep columns following a heavy line of skirmishers, which they called Voltigeurs. Worked out pretty well for them for a while during the first French Empire. Grenadiers are another fascinating aspect of the time period as well. The function of grenades in particular were short lived, but the prestige, as well as the pomp and grandeur accompanying these elite companies were so incredible and were prized by almost all nations.

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.

As a small tidbit to leave off on, here is a brief and bad-ass account of Lt. Col. Lord Charles Hey at the Battle of Dettingen (june 27, 1743). Cumberland (the British General) is losing the battle to the French. Cumberland orders one risky charge over a half mile of open ground in the exact center of the French line. Hay not only takes his time marching across that half mile in full exposure to French artillery, but once he reaches the French lines, he yells "If you would please fire first, French sirs." And if that is not bad-ass enough, a French line major yells back "You please fire first, English sirs!" Look it up, true story. Now those are classic gentlemen. I don't necessarily want to be the poor guys listening to their commanders telling the other to fire first, but you got to admit that is pretty neat stuff.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;118441 wrote:

Great hypothetical! LOL! I was attempting to post something directly related to this topic earlier today.

If I had to choose between 18th to mid 19th century linear battles (#1) or more static medieval style of warfare (#2), I would honestly choose #1. I don't care really about the chances of survival or what not, I just love the style of warfare during that particular time period. Honestly, philosophy doesn't even share a modicum of the level of interest I share with Napoleonic military history and even a more narrowed favoritism of British military history.

The weapons used during the time period are fantastic. From the multiple patterns of Brown Bess smoothbore muskets to the more interesting Baker and Ferguson rifles, you have to appreciate military technology of that day, and how insane it really was. Think about it, one of the primary reasons why you stand in a line and deliver your fire in volleys is because your weapon had the accuracy of? well? nothing? they just were not accurate at all. But its out of those inadequacies that military ingenuity came. The British developed platoon firing to essentially provide a constant rate of fire. Amazing considering the even the best infantryman could fire around 3 shots a minute.

And even as far as weapons were concerned, the tactics developed during that time period were amazing. Light Infantry were essentially pioneered by the British during the seven years war? essentially laying the foundation for skirmishing lines. Unit organization and standardization was apparently an impossible feat as far as the British were concerned (Duke of York). But almost every country had their own particular linear formation strategy. The French had a particularly interesting concept that instead of meeting in standard lines, they met in thin but deep columns following a heavy line of skirmishers, which they called Voltigeurs. Worked out pretty well for them for a while during the first French Empire. Grenadiers are another fascinating aspect of the time period as well. The function of grenades in particular were short lived, but the prestige, as well as the pomp and grandeur accompanying these elite companies were so incredible and were prized by almost all nations.

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.

As a small tidbit to leave off on, here is a brief and bad-ass account of Lt. Col. Lord Charles Hey at the Battle of Dettingen (june 27, 1743). Cumberland (the British General) is losing the battle to the French. Cumberland orders one risky charge over a half mile of open ground in the exact center of the French line. Hay not only takes his time marching across that half mile in full exposure to French artillery, but once he reaches the French lines, he yells "If you would please fire first, French sirs." And if that is not bad-ass enough, a French line major yells back "You please fire first, English sirs!" Look it up, true story. Now those are classic gentlemen. I don't necessarily want to be the poor guys listening to their commanders telling the other to fire first, but you got to admit that is pretty neat stuff.

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,

A love of history, and especially military history, is definitely a very rewarding and entertaining thing to get involved in. I seriously don't go more than two weeks without getting another book on the subject from Amazon or going to the library. And the evolution of tactics and strategy is spectacular. What you may find interesting are these little hiccups in technology that occur every 25-50 years beginning in the early 17th century all the way up to present day and the impact they have on the future battlefield. AND SERIOUSLY, LAST TIDBIT? I PROMISE! The Second Boer war (1899) in particular is an especially fascinating hiccup (and a lucky occurrence for the British? even though they lost). This is the penultimate occurrence of the old British fighting linear style and the begrudged change into "modern" fighting techniques.

The Boers did a few things that are utterly amazing and clearly sensible to us now, but back then were just unheard of. The Boers were outnumbered severely, but they understood the value of the offensive to keep the British on the defensive? because if that dynamic changed, they would be pretty well dead. Boers organized into very capable and deadly commando squads of 30, which were populated by veteran hunters and Zulu fighters, but armed with high powered rifles, horses, and introduced a more dynamic use of trench warfare and camouflage. One British general remarked that "every boer was his own general." So imagine the British army (which hadn't really evolved much since the mid 1800's) vs. a literal small army of delta force level commandos! An army of one was copyrighted by the Boers. LOL!

The British were in the end victorious (at a severe cost), but look at what this deadly Boer style did. The Brits were forced to adapt asymmetric warfare much like the Boers? which in the end prepared them for WWI. The French, who did not have the benefit of that lesson, entered WWI in linear formation, bright red pants and blue coats, tall plumed kepi's and all. What followed for them was a massacre and a tough learning experience. But just think of the numbers involved here. The Brits initially had 25,000 fighting men in all of south Africa, and the Boers initially started out with less than 5000. By the end of the war, it took the Brits 500,000 (half a million!!!) men to subdue 80,000 Boers, which was achieved not through military conquest, but through a campaign of sheer terror against the Boers families (concentration camps). And these are not some crazy propaganda numbers either, but the accepted figures by both parties. The Boers lost 4000 men, the Brits lost 26,000, and (good job British), the British killed 12,000 civilians due to neglect and disease in the concentration camps.

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,

Honestly, war is as subjective as pretty much everything else. Some people find it hell and some people find it heaven. Quakers and Samurai, right? It's all a relative perception of a natural phenomenon in human civil evolution. Some have made it an art form (Sun Tzu) and some have made it a canvas for carnage (Clausewitz). Some utilize it for ill gotten gains and some use it for entirely noble purposes. But the existential quantifier is the main point, at least one person would most likely look at war in a different way than the common perception we most all likely have? that war is indeed hell.

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).

Which is probably the underline theme that Amperage may be getting at, which is that if you had your choice between the more "modern" linear battles or the more dated medieval battles, which would you choose as the lesser of the two evils. I choose the linear battles with guns and so on because I appreciate the history and the ingenuity, etc. that went into it. But I just like it for those reasons and since it's a hypothetical, I can be irrationally partial.

To play devil's advocate though, war was the making of many people in terms of careers and so on. Heck, even today that is a regular question asked on most every application for jobs today, "have you served in the armed forces." Arthur Wellesley was a no-name brother of a Governor in India. War led to him being universally recognized in military history, Prime Minister of Britain, etc. But it has also been the breaking of many people as well, especially for those who die. Is there honor and glory in war? Again, it depends on how you look at it. I remember Lord Horatio Nelson who, dying from a sniper bullet on board his flagship Victory, uttered his last words, "Thank God I have done my duty."

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;118618 wrote:

Honestly, war is as subjective as pretty much everything else. Some people find it hell and some people find it heaven. Quakers and Samurai, right? It's all a relative perception of a natural phenomenon in human civil evolution. Some have made it an art form (Sun Tzu) and some have made it a canvas for carnage (Clausewitz). Some utilize it for ill gotten gains and some use it for entirely noble purposes. But the existential quantifier is the main point, at least one person would most likely look at war in a different way than the common perception we most all likely have? that war is indeed hell.

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.

LOL! Musashi that samurai was not. Although Chuck Norris would have appreciated such a clever ninja. As it is well known, Chuck Norris abolished the table of elements because he recognizes only one element? the element of surprise.

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

It's a good point. There are a few issues though that could be raised. One thing is the relative size of the populations being accounted for in that frame. Also, averages don't tell you the whole story, especially when it comes to battles. And especially in regards to that graph, there are major statistical outliers? not to mention the relative frequencies of given battles and wars of battles and wars, such as between the 1600-1700 range and 1900-1950 range. On that note, I would venture to say that there were many more individual battles and wars fought in the 18th-19th than in the 20th century. That's the nature of the geo-political climate at the time compared to now. So maybe the sum of many individual battles all over the world equate to a high average of casualties per day due to the fact that war and battle were more frequent. If you had a volume chart showing the number of battles and so on, it would be a lot easier to accept the frame.

But honestly, I am more concerned (or rather more interested) with the individual battles per se, and not the average of casualties in wars in particular at this particular juncture? which I should have been a lot more explicit about in the previous post, so my bad on that note. But take the battle of Austerlitz (1805) and Verdun (1916) (specifics from 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

Which would you choose?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know