Could the closed Greek helmet kill a warrior?

Rivkin · 28th May 2005, 10:44 PM

My reply is going to be controversial, but:

If you talk with people volunteering for war, you'll understand that a lot of them are looking for an adventure. Adventure can include a heroic death in the midst of battle, it does not include freezing to death while manning some supply post in the rear.

Therefore we are not interested in how many people died in Civil War from diceases and other non-combat related causes (majority of casualty suffered by parties were actually from diceases), we don't want to talk about the real reasons behind the union victory - we do want to invent the "heroic battle that decided everything". We could've picked Shiloh or some other engagement but for certain, sometimes quite arbitrary reasons we picked Gettysberg.

It's similar stories with heroes - we don't like an effective military machine to win the war. We don't like a new technology or superioty in numbers and supply to win the war. We like to have immortal heroes, let's say Patton, and to tell stories about some ingenious plans they devised.

Diseases where one of the main problems of mediaval warfare - but how many writers do write about it ? I remember only one author suggesting that one of the biggest problems with mamluk reqruitment was taking people from somewhat isolated areas, and deploying them 1000 miles to the south, resulting in huge numbers of them simply dying from diseases they had no immunity to.

The same with people dying from heat, exhastion, drawning in mud or in a human stampede on the battlefield - it's not "adventurous", and therefore largely left outside of the scope of debate.

28th May 2005, 10:44 PM	#28
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	My reply is going to be controversial, but: If you talk with people volunteering for war, you'll understand that a lot of them are looking for an adventure. Adventure can include a heroic death in the midst of battle, it does not include freezing to death while manning some supply post in the rear. Therefore we are not interested in how many people died in Civil War from diceases and other non-combat related causes (majority of casualty suffered by parties were actually from diceases), we don't want to talk about the real reasons behind the union victory - we do want to invent the "heroic battle that decided everything". We could've picked Shiloh or some other engagement but for certain, sometimes quite arbitrary reasons we picked Gettysberg. It's similar stories with heroes - we don't like an effective military machine to win the war. We don't like a new technology or superioty in numbers and supply to win the war. We like to have immortal heroes, let's say Patton, and to tell stories about some ingenious plans they devised. Diseases where one of the main problems of mediaval warfare - but how many writers do write about it ? I remember only one author suggesting that one of the biggest problems with mamluk reqruitment was taking people from somewhat isolated areas, and deploying them 1000 miles to the south, resulting in huge numbers of them simply dying from diseases they had no immunity to. The same with people dying from heat, exhastion, drawning in mud or in a human stampede on the battlefield - it's not "adventurous", and therefore largely left outside of the scope of debate.