Has the experience of the combat infantryman changed?

Do you think the experience of the combat infantryman has changed over the years, or is it basically the same as it was in the time of the Romans? Is the soldier in Iraq much different from the soldier of the Great War or the Napoleonic Wars?

 

Seems to me instead of criticizing others,you'd care to post your own reply!

[ 11. April 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: framert ]

 

Marching straight into enemy fire isn't brave?

An archer or longbowman could do the same hundreds or thousands of years ago, as could a rifleman of the Napoleonic wars.

 

Did I miss something or has part of this thread been removed?

 

Yeah, I don't think Framert apreciated his answer being savaged.

I don't think they are any more or less brave, they are just called upon to fight in a different way. If you compare medevil combat, most of which was about flagwaving and scaring your opponant rather than actually killing him (with the spates of combat only lasting a matter of minutes) and you compare it to something like street fighting in Mogadishu or Iraq or any time as far back as WW2 I think you would find them to be equally harrowing. The biggest difference I can think of is the increased presence (and effectiveness) of 'indirect fire' weapons on the battlefield. That is to say that soldiers are more at risk of being hit by an enemy they couldn't see now than ever before and so actually it takes a fair bit of courage to be anywhere within a combat zone. At least for the Roman legionnaire he could walk a mile from the front and be reasonably sure that no one could hurt him.

Like I said, I don't think soldiers are a different breed or anything, they are just fighting in a different way and have different expectations. They appear 'softer' perhapse than their historical counterparts only because they are used to a different quality of life (compare Russian peasant soldiers in WW2 of VC in Vietnam to their western counterparts, they were no tougher they just didn't know what an 'easier life' was).

As for Framert's post, Greenjacket raised a couple of good points, it takes a hell of a lot of courage to march straight towards an enemy who is standing 100m away blasting away with musket and rifle supported by cannon fire, perhapse even more courage than it takes to be part of a charging Roman formation since the enemy are not really shooting back, just waiting with axe and sword ready. I think if you traind an infantryman and stuck him in an Imperial French column or a Saxon shield wall he would do just as well. The biggest problem would be dissatisfaction with life outside of battle because it would not be up to the standards one expects today, but that is another issue.

How is that for the most rambling post in the thread? I hope it makes sense to someone!

 

framert, the posts have probably been sent to cyberspace during the monster crash. Just looked on the books/publications and I see that from page two onward that it has also been tainted with cyber death...........

E

 

Just an aside to Stefan's post....
Not all mediaeval engagements lasted minutes, most raged for hours or were spread over days, like Bannockburn for instance.
Also, if you were an ordinary peasant conscripted to fight in his lord's armed band, chances are you would be neither trained nor equipped. There are cases of men answering the compulsory role call for military service, then deserting. Or guys turning up on the battlefield, firing two arrows and then going home, happy in the knowledge that they had fulfilled their feudal obligation to render military service!
These guys also had the least chance of survival in combat, because being dirt poor, their lives weren't worth sparing. Knights and aristos, on the other hand, could surrender to another knight and live like kings in captivity until their ransom was paid. No other option available for the footsoldiers but fight or die. At least modern troops are (theoretically) covered by the Geneva Convention.
In these days of state armies, men can expect to be paid, fed and receive medical treatment. In the Hundred Years War, both sides hired mercenaries who were paid off at the end of the campaigning season. These men then spent the winter stealing crops and burning villages, exacerbating supply problems the following summer again.
Most mediaeval armies lost more men to disease than they ever lost in battle, and suffered even greater stupidity from their "leaders"; look at the Crusade that started at the end of the Holy Land with no water supply

Regards,

Gordon

[ 12. April 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

One thing that I remember from history lessons
( this happened probably in the 18th century )was the code of officers which sometimes was quite "funny". Two unit commanders might quarrel that the other officer´s soldiers must shoot first-he insists.

I don´t know if the guns were that bad or the code so strict but cannot imagine this happen today.

 

No need to take it personally mate, this is a discussion board after all.

Anyway, as far as I can see the experience of a footsoldier hasnt changed fundamentally. Obviously technology has transformed exactly how they fight, but ultimately an infantryman still has to engage his enemy, be it with a club, a sword, a musket and bayonet or an assault rifle. Going along with that, a infantryman through all the ages has still had to march bearing heavy loads, has still had to live in often shitty conditions and has still to face grave danger and the hardships of a soldier's life.

The tools of the trade have changed, but ultimately and fundamentally I think the experience of the combat infantryman hasn't.

 

I agree Greenjacket. Modern combat infantry still have to sit out in the desert during a sand storm, or march in the mud, sit in the rain and go weeks wearing the same clothes, without bathing. Those things will never change I suppose, at least not in our lifetime. Even with all the technology we have it still takes men with guns on the ground to actually control an area.

 

No doubt,there will always be the grunts in the field in any war.Would'nt it have been alot more exhausting though back in the Roman era?You'd march for-ever and then fight.A good example might be Neapolean? But our Civil War really gets under my skin. These were'nt professional soldiers yet would hold formation marching straight into gunfire. I could never picture myself doing that!

 

The chances are you would though mate, I mean you would have all your mates standing around you and you would be dead scared of looking weak in front of them, not to mention the sergeants shouting at you to stay in formation.

As for whether it would have been more exhausting, well maybe so but a Roman soldier would have been used to it, they would be used to marching long distances with their kit. On the other hand I very much doubt if you dressed one up in modern kit and told him to run 3 miles with a full Bergen he would manage it because it wouldn't be the kind of thing he is used to.

 

Having been there myself as a radio-rifleman in WW II on Luzon, P.I., I truly think almost every combat soldier fights so as not to let down his comrades who depend on him, regardless of what war you are referring to. Believe me, no one thinks of God and Country when engaged in a fire fight which may kill him any second...only on trying to survive and not disgrace himself or his comrades....

 

As for my experiences and what I have read from history, I do not think that the individual soldier's experience is much different. The fear is still there. The fear of letting your friends down. The fear of getting hit or dying. The weapons may be different and more lethal, the soldiers day to day misery still exists. He is still exposed to the elements without any of the creature comforts or sanitary conveniences and yet he still does his duty.

 

I doubt the duties of the ordinary footsoldier/infantryman has changed much. You still have to look after your weapons, still have to make sure you picked a good spot to set up camp, still have to make sure that any lights/fires aren't visible at night etc etc etc...

 

Troops today do carry a lot of equipment. You'd be surprised how much one actually has to carry into battle - especially those damned radios (which break half the time, but you can't leave behind because of the crypto). In the old days, some troops carried a lot, but guys today will commonly carry anywhere from 60 to 100 pounds of additional gear for a patrol, sometimes more.

I think the context has changed a lot for troops too, though. Troops today know a bit more what they're getting into. In the days of yore, many/most troops were poorly educated, and had little idea of what to expect in conflict, let alone any real perception of the finality of death or injury. Today, kids grow up watching war on TV, and while some say this makes them "less sensitive," I believe it creates a whole new perspective. Combat is combat, but knowing so much more about your enemy makes it seem that much more real and scary.

Troops today are more educated and worldly, as well as more technically skilled than their past counterparts. Troops today have to be much more technically proficient and intelligent, as the weapons and tactics - especially MOUT - can become quite complex. Imagine telling a Roman soldier to clean his SAW, or a Napoleonic officer to establish flanking enfilade with his machine guns.

Troops today are a more proficient, educated, technically skilled, and deadly form than any previous.

 

Well, today corporal punishment like flogging and being "bucked and gagged" are no longer in vouge.

 

Ha, right you are. I wonder how that would go these days? I guess it works for Spetsnaz.

 

Framert as a Combat infantry VET of 2 tours in iraq and Afghanistan im not going to even dignify that BS, combat in any era for the front line grunt is always muddy bloody dusty and dangerous..... nothing romantic about it...

 

Right on. Who were you with?