Position:Home>History> Ancient military combat vs. Medieval combat vs. modern combat?
Question: Ancient military combat vs!. Medieval combat vs!. modern combat!?
I was listening to a podcast yesterday on Hannibal Barca vs!. the Romans and the guy hosting it was describing in detail what it would be like to do hand-to-hand combat with the high risk of being killed!.
Was hand-to-hand combat in Medieval times just as risky even though soldiers wore helmets, chain mail, etc!?
What is more risky!? Going in hand-to-hand combat with the risk of getting mutiliated/killed or shooting others from a distance with the enemy shooting back (modern warfare)!?
These questions are out of mere curiousity!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
The most dangerous thing about warfare of any era is disease!. That's been the traditional threat to most armies, especially those in siege situations!.
But as far a combat!. I'd put modern warfare down as the most dangerous!. With the range of rifles, mortars, grenades, never mind heavy artillery and bombing by aircraft, the modern infantryman had better be a very fast digger to hope to survive on a modern battlefield!. While hand to hand combat was certainly dangerous, it didn't tend to involve high speed projectiles as much!.
And I'd say that combat in Medieval times was indeed as risky as more classical warfare!. The armor of the Romans and some of the other warriors of the age tended to be as well suited to protect against weapons as the later versions were!. And the weapons evolved to overcome that armor!. There is a very good reason things like maces and morning stars were popular!. If you couldn't cut them to death, you could jellied their internal organs if you hit them hard enough!.
The biggest thing about hand to hand warfare is that it is actually a fairly rare occurance in any time period!. It took time to manouver armies and come to grips, and frequently an army would choose to disengage before closing to hand to hand range!. Once it did start, it was a chaotic mess!. The worst casualties usually occurred at the time one side or the other began to retreat, or more especially when they began to rout!. Once unit cohesion was lost, the winning army would simply run down the losers and inflict casualties at will!.
So, talk all you like about the glory of war!. But behind every ounce of glory is a ton of entrails and shattered limbs piled up and stinking to heaven!. Amazing how we still keep at it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Naturally in the old days (ancient times and medieval times) when you went to war, you had a high risk of being killed!. So, to counter-act that risk, one would train oneself to wield ones weapon of choice with greater ability!. Back then it actually mattered if you were good or not!. In medieval times, when armor was more widely used and advanced, it did provide more protection, but it would hamper the user because of the weight and limited field of vision!. Not to mention, the weapons that one used were often more deadly than their earlier counter-parts!. Today, the need to be an excellent warrior or shot is negligible because of the distance of the fighting taking place!.
For instance, say that someone trains for 5 years in the Army(or any branch) to be one of the best shots/tacticians ever seen!. Have him march next to a new recruit down a road in enemy territory!. The enemy will kill both of them without thinking of the abilities or traits in either of them!.
Fighting hand-to-hand combat was indeed risky, but if one was a successful fighter and had a name for oneself then you can usually scare many of the would-be enemies away!. Now-a-days any idiot with a gun can win in a fight!. It takes no skill to shoot someone, just good eyesight and steady hand!. It is undoubtedly riskier to fight now-a-days, with our guns that can shoot for miles with impunity!. Definitely!.Www@QuestionHome@Com