In ancient times, how did humans overcome their self-preservation instincts to engage in hand-to-hand combat during wars?
In: 43
When confronted with a dangerous and inescapable threat, fighting *is* the survival instinct.
Battles weren’t quite like they are depicted in the media. Most deaths didn’t occur during the battle itself, the battles were mostly standing around, marching around a bunch to maneuver, and trying to evade enemy attacks, if they ever came. Deaths in battle rarely exceeded 20%, and the vast majority of those occurred in the rout when the victims weren’t fighting back.
In short, most people *didn’t* have to overcome fear of death to engage in combat. Most attacks occurred against people who were running away, and thus little to no risk to the attacker.
When confronted with a dangerous and inescapable threat, fighting *is* the survival instinct.
Battles weren’t quite like they are depicted in the media. Most deaths didn’t occur during the battle itself, the battles were mostly standing around, marching around a bunch to maneuver, and trying to evade enemy attacks, if they ever came. Deaths in battle rarely exceeded 20%, and the vast majority of those occurred in the rout when the victims weren’t fighting back.
In short, most people *didn’t* have to overcome fear of death to engage in combat. Most attacks occurred against people who were running away, and thus little to no risk to the attacker.
There are several different things at work:
Formation – in a battle formation such as the pike square, the people in the back row are safe and thus have no reason to run; while the persons in front are hemmed in and has no place to run. Since there is no where else for you to go, might as well do what everyone around you is doing and fight.
Camaraderie – you are fighting along side people whom you share a deep bound with. In the ancient world, most armies are non-professional. In this case, you’d be fighting along side the people from your village, people that your grew up with. You’d feel the emotional rush to fight with them, and you’d also know that there will be shame waiting for you back at the village if you displayed cowardice. In the rare cases of professional armies, boot camps, as it is in today’s professional armies, build that camaraderie.
Economic incentives – in the ancient world, there aren’t many routes of upward social mobility. If your were born a peasant farmer, chances are that your will stay a peasant farmer for life, and the same for your children and your children’s children. But war, and let’s be real, loot, is one way to escape your lot in life.
Also, it’s already mentioned by other answers, the instinct of self preservation is present on both sides. And in most cases, both armies look to preserve self rather than charge in bloodlust.
Lastly, if this is the stuff that interests you, then I highly recommend going down the additive rabbit hole at r/AskHistoians. The latest thread that covers your question is [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/116ir89/how_come_so_few_people_died_in_classical_infantry/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf).
There are several different things at work:
Formation – in a battle formation such as the pike square, the people in the back row are safe and thus have no reason to run; while the persons in front are hemmed in and has no place to run. Since there is no where else for you to go, might as well do what everyone around you is doing and fight.
Camaraderie – you are fighting along side people whom you share a deep bound with. In the ancient world, most armies are non-professional. In this case, you’d be fighting along side the people from your village, people that your grew up with. You’d feel the emotional rush to fight with them, and you’d also know that there will be shame waiting for you back at the village if you displayed cowardice. In the rare cases of professional armies, boot camps, as it is in today’s professional armies, build that camaraderie.
Economic incentives – in the ancient world, there aren’t many routes of upward social mobility. If your were born a peasant farmer, chances are that your will stay a peasant farmer for life, and the same for your children and your children’s children. But war, and let’s be real, loot, is one way to escape your lot in life.
Also, it’s already mentioned by other answers, the instinct of self preservation is present on both sides. And in most cases, both armies look to preserve self rather than charge in bloodlust.
Lastly, if this is the stuff that interests you, then I highly recommend going down the additive rabbit hole at r/AskHistoians. The latest thread that covers your question is [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/116ir89/how_come_so_few_people_died_in_classical_infantry/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf).
If you want an interesting view into Roman warfare around 30BC (during the rise of Caesar), search YouTube for the opening battle scene of HBO’s Rome show.
It is by no means representative of all ancient combat, but it does show you one reason why Roman legions were the infantry powerhouse of their region during this time: organization.
In the scene, you see the infantrymen stacked into close columns, where only the man in front is actually facing/fighting the enemy. The man behind him holds onto the back of his armor to keep him from straying away. Periodically, the officer blows a loud whistle to signal that the front man should disengage and cycle to the back of the column. Theoretically, while the formation holds, this cycling makes sure that no single soldier spends huge amounts of time fighting or gets too exhausted.
Similarly, the incredible success of Macedonian phalanxes under Phillip II and Alexander the Great were partly due to a unique weapon: the sarissa. The sarissa was a pike that was several feet longer than the standard length used by most other Greek phalanxes. The idea behind the sarissa was simple: stab your opponent from a longer distance, before he gets close enough to stab you.
You are right, hand to hand combat is terrifying and something that most soldiers would prefer to avoid. In both the Roman legion tactics and the Greek sarissa, we can see that one element of some successful military strategies is to actually minimize the amount of hand to hand combat that a solider is exposed to- either by cycling the solider out, or keeping enemies away with a longer stick.
Don’t forget that the essence of self preservation is ‘Fight or Flight’. I’ll bet that there was plenty of tendency for flight before battle started and more seasoned soldiers would be engaged in looking out for potential fleers and putting the fear of God into them should they think of doing a bunk.
Just to add in one factor that I haven’t seen mentioned yet; depending on the culture, they were likely quite drunk and/or a version of high on some sort of plant
If you want an interesting view into Roman warfare around 30BC (during the rise of Caesar), search YouTube for the opening battle scene of HBO’s Rome show.
It is by no means representative of all ancient combat, but it does show you one reason why Roman legions were the infantry powerhouse of their region during this time: organization.
In the scene, you see the infantrymen stacked into close columns, where only the man in front is actually facing/fighting the enemy. The man behind him holds onto the back of his armor to keep him from straying away. Periodically, the officer blows a loud whistle to signal that the front man should disengage and cycle to the back of the column. Theoretically, while the formation holds, this cycling makes sure that no single soldier spends huge amounts of time fighting or gets too exhausted.
Similarly, the incredible success of Macedonian phalanxes under Phillip II and Alexander the Great were partly due to a unique weapon: the sarissa. The sarissa was a pike that was several feet longer than the standard length used by most other Greek phalanxes. The idea behind the sarissa was simple: stab your opponent from a longer distance, before he gets close enough to stab you.
You are right, hand to hand combat is terrifying and something that most soldiers would prefer to avoid. In both the Roman legion tactics and the Greek sarissa, we can see that one element of some successful military strategies is to actually minimize the amount of hand to hand combat that a solider is exposed to- either by cycling the solider out, or keeping enemies away with a longer stick.
Latest Answers