in strategy games you usually have troops at the frontline whose sole purpose is to die fighting to buy you time to execute your plans or to protect stronger troops. is this something that happens in real life / used to happen before, if so what are the logistics of it, do the troops know that they are most likely goona die, etc..
In: 399
In real life, militaries would often employ pragmatic solutions to army order and such. It was common to send conscripts or poor people in first if it weakened or exhausted the more dangerous opponent before sending in their equivalent to crush them. Military theory was ALL over the place thru out the world and history, some examples are..
During the rise and domination of Ancient Greece, Persia was well known for having their more veteran troops in the front of the greener troops. The theory was for the more veteran troops to do the hardest fighting and allow the greener troops to blood themselves on exhausted enemies when the vets pulled back.
Greece would have ALL the troops form a line with their heavier troops or elites on one side of the army. Greek employed a system of “citizen soldiers” who were trained and armed enough to hold out long enough for the elite side of the army to break their opponents and support them by flanking and encircling the center of a foes army. Greek conscripts were used as skirmishers (javelin throwers and cowardly archers/slingers) since thy viewed conscripts (the poor non-citizens) as borderline useless. Which they were, with some exceptions.
Ancient Rome military practice was different from Greece and other nations at the time because they had a considerably larger manpower pool to exhaust compared to their neighbors during its rise. Because of this, they valued their Veteran (and richer troops) more then their greener and poorer troops. They could afford to send in the “Hastati” (poor/young soldiers) first and when they grew exhausted the “Principes’ (Veteran/middle class and more well equipped) soldiers next to crush what was left. These troops were trained to swap between each other and work together to preserve their stamina and exhaust their foes. Their tight formations, discipline, and use of tower shields allowed the Romani to simply outlast their foes. (aggressive defense)
In reality and history, Nations, states, and tribes used what they had and did what they needed to do to fucking WIN and depending on a lot of factors, yes, peasants and conscripts knew damn well they were going to go toe to toe with some of the most dangerous people their enemies had and there are just so many things to consider when they do get sent into a meat grinder. Sometimes they demonstrate considerable bravery given the circumstance. Remember, these unfortunate souls have no where to go or run too if they don’t “do their part”. They can’t leave their families, state, or culture because “the other people” outright fucking killed outsiders and their own family will kill them if they ran, not to mention the state. If they didn’t kill them and let them rejoin, them being known as a coward destroyed any ability they had for social mobility, even if it made sense to run, it sticks to them for life.
This phenomena of social expectation of soldiers exists in ALL societies throughout history, even today. Which is why calling anybody a coward (soldier or not) is considered a grave insult (Fighting words) and have brought shame to people who did not rise to challenge it appropriately. Its quite funny, imo, that people who fought such accusations physically and LOST (whether they survived or not is irrelevant) were more respected in their communities. Hell, surviving was a reason to boast in some cases.
There was so much at stake at times that cowardly males would off themselves then face the wrath of their kin, or worse, face the devastation the victorious army did to your home and family, if their family weren’t killed or enslaved or worse. There have been instances were weakened culture groups or states outlawed suicide for cowardice to preserve manpower during war time, even if the manpower was dubious.
So really, they had no choice. It was simply BETTER to die fighting (or at least giving it a good go to show you care.)
Latest Answers