Follow the lead of Spartan women

>Spartan law codified under Lycurgus expressed the importance of child bearing to Sparta.

Motherhood should become a badge of honor again - with only those who have attempted it worthy to be called real women.
It worked in Sparta to boost birth rates.

Attached: Spartan women.jpg (800x663, 121.1K)

Other urls found in this thread:

remember to always filter the shield maiden fags

I was just reading the chapter about this in Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World. To add to what you have listed, Evola says that Hindu women who died during childbirth were given a warrior burial ceremony

It's almost like this isn't 650 B.C anymore you dumb nigger. Your fucking retarded analogy existed for most of civilization up until recently so why you chose this time period is just stupid

This is why you can't find a girl that will fuck you.

incels, please reply

I’m married with 2 white kids you dumb faggot.

Join faggots

I don't need kids, I'm gonna gas the kikes all by myself, just wait and see
Any fag who needs kids to do their job is a fag

When will Zig Forums get a grasp of high school biology…why, why, why do we have to tolerate this cuck chan level OP's? Is the some sort of FUCKING POLITICS to you OP?

It is better than you not have children.

Buddy how don't you understand that whether you're married with mayo kids or not, it's not going to make somebo6 retract their statement?

For real my silver citizen, when has the retort "nuh uh not true" ever worked out for you?

Your wife is definitely actively searching for side dick. Even through text on a screen, your immeasurable faggotry pushes through.

Wow a feral nigger loose on Zig Forums surprise surprise. Filtered nigger.


Your post is not very political. Yes, women should be guided to motherhood. That's hardly a debate. Holding up Sparta is not much of an argument.

Nothing is more anti-woman than the Jewish influenced system of institutions in the West. Women are like children, in motivations and agency. They need to lose all political and most legal rights, and men will take good care of them. Nothing is worse for women and better for Jewish capital than requiring women to wageslave. Expecting women to work outside the home increases production and destroys wages, and it wastes female lives in slaving for a company. Not only does it destroy the family, but male productivity also suffers from not having a trustworthy assistant in the home.

You just can't decide because you are too busy looking in the mirror.

god damn what a bad post holy shit

I don't even own a mirror. I'm homeless you son of a bitch.

It is a nigger.

So a faggot homeless dude is pointing fingers? What is your vice homeless mirrorless faggot?

Honor and dignity is disobedience to the Leftist cult.
male privileged.

They are CRAZY. You can't reason with them.
You are correct, but for every person you persuade, 1000 more soy boys are born, and 10,000 Chinese and Muslims are born.

You DNA is due to be exterminated due to your apathy. cool.

Sparta was essentially a communist country. Helots could be assailed, beaten, raped, mutilated and murdered on a whim by Spartans. Spartans lived in barracks. The family didn't exist. There were barracks for the old, for men, for women, for children by age for mothers with babies. It was 2% ruling with Marquis de Sade cruelty over the 98% who were the Helot/slaves

What the fuck is a helot? Oh you mean a slave.

What's going with that then?

That is why it is perfect for the (((OP))) and for the niggers in the thread.

Sparta is very attractive as an ideal but had numerous vulnerabilities that led to its destruction… they had low sexual potency, thus unsustainable recruitment, women gained significant power with little risk due to land owning laws

The Spartans were a distinct race apart from the helots, if they did not rule cruelly over them they would have been annihilated by those who outnumbered them by so much, it is extraordinary that such a dwindling race held power by sheer force for so long. Like an entire race of SS officers.

Slavery is retarded and it always leads to racial dissolution with the slaves because men have no standards.

That makes no sense.

The slave-society that is Sparta was more homogenous than now slavery-free America and Germany.

Heck, the slave-holden America was less mixed than the Civil rights America.

It's certainly unsustainable as a long-term strategy. PIE tactics of nomadic subjugation may be preferable



ETHNOGLOBE; Death to parasites.


Attached: old dictionary definition.jpg (667x660, 98.07K)

Slavery makes you weak.
Sparta died with a whimper and they weren't as tough as modern hollywood makes them out to be.
Sparta was actually a horrible society.
I'd much rather be an Argosian or a Theban or a Corinthian or an Athenian than a Spartan.

Sparta was actually one of the last resisting states against both the Macedonian and then later the Romans.

It's athens who was weak.

Realistically, you're not wrong. It's what women do.

Random historical tangent time!
So there was this one time in the twilight of Sparta's years, long after their glory days when they barely had 1000 citizen soldiers to speak of. At this time, Pyrrhus of Epirus was gallivanting around Greece making one enemy after another. He had just annihilated Macedon and now marched into Peloponnese to capture Sparta while their main army was in Crete for reasons.
He surprised the Spartans and besieged their capital which had no walls btw. All that was left in the city were about 2000 slaves, old men, youths, and the women. The Spartan government tried to evacuate the women and children but the women refused to abandon Sparta.
Moved by their courage, the men built a makeshift wall on the southern side of the city to repel the Epirot attack.
The women worked alongside the men in desperation, often pleading with the men to rest lest they become too tired from work to fight.
Finally, the Epirots attacked. Again and again the nearly 30 thousand army with dozens of elephants was repulsed by nothing but 2 thousand men and women. Each time the Epirots tore down the wall, it was rebuilt.
Eventually, Pyrrhus gave up and attacked Argos where he was killed.
Thus ended one of the most amazing careers of any king.

True. They were no pushovers. However, the reason Macedon left them alone was because Sparta was no longer a threat at that point. Alexander conquered all of Asia. He could have crushed Sparta like a bug.
I'd have rather been Athenian because Spartan society was seriously fucked up.

Attached: Siege of Sparta.jpg (784x615, 201.46K)

If only women didn't have VOTING rights…


Alexander conquered Sparta too, just that Sparta was one of the last states to be captured.

The only nigger whiteknight here is you!

Remember to filter globohomo faggots.
There goes the whole thread; with you in the lead.

Yeah, because it was the furthest place from Pella

Speak English?

They also head great economic power, no? They controlled property.


Daily Reminder
There are only two ways to an afterlife that is not shit.

1. Death in righteous and glorious battle.
2. Death in righteous and glorious child-birth.

All other causes of death result in summary deletion from existence and exile to the dark void of nonexistence.

Attached: ahhhhhh.JPG (599x456, 48.72K)

What if you're a civilian who is incinerated when your city is nuked? Does that count as a battle-death?

Killing your breeders is glorious anons…
Right after that, kill yourselves.

wtf user, I love kikes now.


Fookin' 'ell, I'm psyched!!!

Attached: ChompHonk.gif (500x500, 783.7K)


Incentivize the behaviors you want. That's how women work. Its also what they want.
Imagine the cognitive data stream for a woman from an event as pictured here.

Its a good time to be alive if you hope to self-propagate beyond your current material platform. There are and will be many opportunities for those presently alive to meet qualifier 1, and qualifier 2 is basically always on the table.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x960, 1.44M)

thanks mgtow bro, us SJWs need to stick together

Imagine thinking that you need to have the right opinions to get laid. In my experience, it's quite the opposite. Dumb cunts make you a project and cling tighter and try to fix you while you get to keep doing increasingly depraved shit to them in the sack and generally treating them like trash.

I don't know anything about Ginnungagap but its said to open here or there like an uncontrolled warp in the woom.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (600x286, 274.82K)

I can imagine her cognitive data stream because she is not dead though.

Spartan women were emancipated witches who infested the cities politics because the men were always out fighting. Sparta was gynocratic society and the women there were so bad the men eventually just started to fuck each other.
Fuck of with this shit kike

nothing wrong with beating your own farming equipment

Reminder for Anons wives to
Read Hypnobirthing
isbn: 978-0757302664

The name sounds hippiedippie but it talks about the history of how jews in the church and then in the hospital have vilainized childbirth. It really should be called 'Come Mome Celtic Woman: The History of Natural Child Birth'.

What proof do you have that they were a separate race? I've never seen any. Helots and Spartans were identical. Think of Rumanian Securitate police and Romanians under Ceaucescu. Same race, but those Securitate fuckers were murderous thugs raised to beat the shit out of Romanians and enslave them to the Communists.

What the fuck did the Spartans produce? Their architecture was boring and crude, I can't think of a single Spartan poet, philosopher, playwright, artist, or even mathematician. Seems to me like it was a dead end society incapable of creating an empire. It was just a brutal slave state oligarchy imposed with an armed force raised to be military slaves.


Attached: 1550929852525.jpg (480x448, 83.57K)

what is wrong with your spacing?
Fucking tourists man i swear.

their art was war
something a faggot like you can not understand

(((Those))) who run the media decide what a real woman is. Not you.

Okay, so what if you're on an army base and the base is nuked. Does being incinerated in a nuclear attack count as a battle death?

Also, what if you are shot in the head by a cop or an enemy soldier and you feel that you are a soldier too engaged in a violent political struggle against your government, however the UN has declared you a criminal-terrorist organization and no state recognizes you as a legitimate soldier.
Does this count as a battle-death or not?

There's more to life than war.
Also, they ultimately lost out to nations that were not only better at war but had actual culture as well.

War is not an "art" as art is a creative activity and war is a murderous destructive activity.

art = painting, sculpture, architecture, literature, music etc

war = rape, murder, pillage, arson, enslavement of the conquered.

If you didn't know this you don't know much.

But they didn't just not produce art. They didn't produce science either. No philosophers, no mathematicians, no physicists, no historians, nothing. They're just a bunch of Ceaucescu style Securitate vicious thugs, attack dogs on a tight leash, with minds scarred by their own brutal treatment ever since they were separated from their mothers at age 4 or 5 to be place in barracks with savage pitiless discipline. They had no autonomous identity, they were the murderous attack slaves for a narrow minded uncreative oligarchy.

Married women in Sparta could fuck men who were strong and with good genetics and have their husbands knowingly raise the children of those men. This was especially true if the husband was infertile, or somehow genetically marred/inferior.

In some cases it was the husband’s responsibility to find the man who would cuck him.

Husbands? They didn't really have families. They all lived in segregated barracks, by age and sex.

Barracks for

Warrior age men
Old men
Young women without children
women with small children
Old women

And so on.

They oligarchs would regularly provide women without children and men wine parties where they could copulate and produce more warriors.
Boys were separated from their mothers at 4 or 5 and put in barracks to begin their lives of harsh discipline.

The Vedas disagree. As well as all of pre-Christian Europe.

Attached: rune yoga.jpg (255x237, 14.27K)

You can imagine her cognitive experience because that woman is not dead? What are you talking about? You sound like a retard.

I would never have a child in a hospital.

If you're a civilian, you didn't die in battle, by definition. So no.
If you were fighting at the time.
What you feel is entirely irrelevant.
That said:
Then there's a good chance you meet qualifier #1.

[Citation Needed]

You are incorrect, they did marry. Even Wikipedia talks about their marriage customs, I don’t even have to look much deeper than that to find some more appropriate sources.

Yes, children were trained harshly and with severity to instil amazing discipline. Yes they were taken from their mothers. But they still knew their mothers and their mothers knew them. They did, indeed, marry and produce families though in accordance with their custom and culture.

So if you're a paid soldier and you're nuked, it does not count simply because you were not fighting at that moment in time? That sounds a tad unfair.
What if you're a soldier in that same base eating an evening meal and instead of being nuked, an enemy sniper blows your head off. You were not fighting at that time but you were killed by a bullet.

>If you feel you're a combatant there's a good chance it's a battle death if you're killed.
Okay, so where do the gods draw the line? If you blow yourself up in a terror attack, does that count as a battle-death? What if you're conducting a truck-of-peace attack and you're shot by a cop? In your mind you're engaging in a violent political struggle against an enemy regime. But in the mind of the regime, you're an unlawful combatant and a terrorist.

Also, what if you are wounded in battle and die years later?

Slam your fingers in a car door so you never post again, faggot.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1280x720, 383.63K)

Whether or not you're paid isn't relevant, but if you're a soldier engaging in battle? Then it counts.
Deal with it nigger. Nobody said existence was 'fair'.

Then you didnt die in glorious battle, you got sniped by some faggot. No sale.

I just said that wasn't relevant at all, so what are you talking about exactly?

Nope. You weren't in battle, you were just on the attack, which is not the same thing.

Whats happening in your mind is irrelevant bud, what matters is the actual events that transpire. Did you die in battle or not?
You keep holding up people who die in tangential matters and, no, that doesn't suffice.

Then if you create a lot of dead enemies you're a great artist in the art of war.

Attached: Lets Make Some Grass Grow.JPG (521x361, 31.39K)

First you have to undo 200 years of like feminist propaganda and make them want to be women in the first place, because right now they'd rather try to be man.

That's never ever ever going to happen.
Hard reality, but the truth.

The only way forward on the front of women is to destroy the extant society and rebuild. You will never get women in sufficient number willing to relegate themselves back into a state of subservience, no matter how much evidence of it making them happier you provide.

Thems the breaks.

You made up some arbitrary rules for reincarnation like a larp-nigger without any evidence of your own. You can't prove how reincarnation works, because you yourself have no idea what you are talking about.

Word for word, what atheist jews preach to be the truth.
All causes of death have a relationship with reincarnation.

The law of cause and effect determine the health of a reincarnation, as well as the tribulation of bardo the in between, Whether the rebirth will be of merit, stagnancy or degeneration.


There are thousands of years of Aryan thought, practice and contemplation on reincarnation written in the Vedas.

Attached: z1283791823713.png (589x637, 743.57K)


Whatever you say, spiritual jew. I hope you find the wisdom to develop yourself out of such an infantile perspective.

Attached: wotan2.jpg (1600x999, 514.6K)

Also, I never said anything about 'reincarnation' you stupid LARPnigger.

You'd think a guy who makes a claim based on objective facts would be able to provide such. Weird that you're just talking out of your butthole instead.

Oh also

Because modern warfare makes a lot of what you say irrelevant. Most war-related or "battle-related" deaths no longer involve a man stabbing the man in front of him with a spear. Most deaths are the result of stepping on a landmine that was placed there years earlier or sitting in a mess hall and being bombed by a guy 3000 miles away operating a drone. Or by no one at all.
What if you're killed by a robot? Is that a "battle-death?"
Another point you might consider is the fact that the line between soldier and civilian has been blurred to non-existence by modern warfare.
Civilians are often targeted in modern warfare because they are considered just as dangerous as uniformed soldiers.

Also, wtf even is a "battle-death?"
If being incinerated by a missile is not a battle-death simply because you were not fighting at that moment, and being killed by a sniper is not a battle-death, then what if you're ambushed and killed before you even have a chance to fight back? If being killed via sniper is not a battle-death, then neither is that. And if being ambushed is not a battle-death, then what if you're stabbed in the back by an enemy on your flank whom you did not see? That's pretty similar to being killed by a sniper.

How does this make any sense?
You said earlier that being shot by a cop if you feel that you're a soldier resisting an illegitimate government could qualify as a battle-death… but now you turn around and say that being shot by the same cop while truck-of-peacing your enemy's civilians is not a battle-death.
Make up your mind!
Is being killed while engaging in guerrilla warfare a battle-death or isn't it?

So what if you die two seconds later? Is that a battle-death?

In fact, is being killed in battle even a battle-death?
At face value it sounds obvious. But you've admitted that being killed by weapons in a war is not necessarily a battle-death if you didn't see it coming.
Thus, by that logic, any soldiers in ancient wars who were killed by arrows or javelins were not battle-deaths.

That means that pretty much everyone who died in the opening moments of a battle against the Romans didn't die a battle-death.
Nor did most of the French noblemen killed at Agincourt.
And what about slings?
Does being killed by a sling count as a battle-death if you didn't get a chance to fight back?

Any and all forms of the afterlife fall under the category of reincarnation. What kind of afterlife do you even believe in? Valhalla? Allah land? Heaven? Come now spiritual jew, please elaborate.

p.s. put down your books and meditate or fast until you go light headed.
Nothing put me off reincarnation more than the pretentious discussions of Evola and the Vedas.

Clearly battle-death should be situations where you had a reasonable chance of killing the other guy. Otherwise it's not battle-death, it's just being slaughtered. This means that
is not a battle-death and there's no glory in it. Getting ambushed or sniped, depends: If the ambush or sniper was incompetent and couldn't kill you outright, so you had a chance to counter attack and get them, that counts. If your whole plan was to attack his position, and one guy gets sniped but then others see his position and kill him, that counts. But if instead of being a random guy, there was a designated redshirt, that's not battle-death because he had no possibility of not being targeted by the sniper and being the one who revenge killed. He's just a fag who allowed himself to be slaughtered with no resistance.

It would also imply that fighting a very one-sided battle in ancient times is not a battle -death. But this is to be distinguished from battles like Thermopylae that were defeats overall, but each individual man got to kill enemies. If you got ass destroyed with hardly any enemy losses, such as in Kircholm, that's an embarrassment not a battle-death - unless the enemy was so overwhelming that even a Pyrrhic victory would be an achievement.

Meanwhile civilians fighting in various situations can easily be battle-death. If you were getting mugged and tried fighting the guy, I'd count that, even if you lost and got killed, assuming you had some possibility of winning. If you had no chance and knew it that's called assisted suicide, not battle.

Forlorn hope is not battle-death unless they have a chance of inflicting casualties. If you are in the cannon fodder unit that's marched in to distract the enemy's artillery, you're better off mutinying as that will at least give you a chance to go down fighting. Now if all units march forward together, and even though knowing most will die to artillery fire, there's no way to know which will die and which will reach the enemy and get to fight, I'd say that's reasonably a battle-death similar to my sniper example above.

No, unless you were charging the slinger with a good chance of closing and killing him if he missed, assuming he was not very unlikely to miss in that situation. If you shoot fish in a barrel, the fish is obviously not getting a battle-death.

Some old chink says something something. wow you based

Read Shopenhauer’s easy On Women. Placeing great value on women is the surest way to get the empowered front holes of today.

It seems like it's impossible to ever die a battle death.
You can't even die a battle-death if you're killed by a bullet unless you have a "reasonable chance" of killing him if he misses. But who decides that? Maybe you could run up to a slinger and slay him but more likely he gets a second shot or he has a side-arm to fight you. Who decides if you could have killed him if you're dead?

And if being killed by a bullet doesn't count simply because you didn't have a chance to even fight back, then pretty much zero modern battle-deaths are actually battle-deaths.

But earlier you said
Being killed by a mugger (with a gun) is probably about as one sided as it gets.
In fact, earlier you stated that being killed during an ambush does not earn you a battle-death. So why would being ambushed and killed by a mugger be any different?

Lacedaemonians (Spartans) were Israelites:

I stated it very clearly: If you have a reasonable chance of killing the other guy, then it's a battle death. If your chance is so low that you're basically a free kill, it's not.

Where did I say this?

It's not such a confusing thing. In most situations you can easily decide if guy X could have gotten guy Y or if he had no chance. The exact odds may be hard to pin down, but extremely hopeless situations are not hard to discern. Given the distance and other conditions, how often does a charging swordsman of similar skill and ability manage to kill a slinger of similar skill and ability before the slinger kills him? You just get the best estimate as any man is biologically wired to do in fight-or-flight situations. If the odds are clearly like one in a million, you are just being stupid by attacking. If the odds are unclear for some reason, I'd call that a good enough situation, because the warrior spirit will challenge the unknown, rather than cower from it.

Maybe you misunderstood me (well, you definitely misunderstood in that you think I said quickness of death matters; it doesn't). If you had a gun and he had a gun, and you got shot, that's not "not having a chance to fight back". You can't stop the bullet, true, but you could also shoot him. Even if he got the drop on you, he could have missed, allowing you a chance to counter attack. But there's a point where you are just walking into an ambush with no reasonable chance of killing anybody - the ambusher takes no risk. That's not battle-death, that's stupid.

And I clarified that one-sided means not having any chance to kill any enemy soldiers. I gave the example of Thermopylae, which was very one-sided, but clearly the Spartans died battle-deaths because they managed to rack up a good KDR. I also gave the example of Kircholm, which appears to have been one sided, but the Swedes totally failed to kill any significant number of Poles, and they also lost despite outnumbering by 3:1.

If the mugger is at close range, and if you are in good shape and can fight well, you have a good chance. You might not have a good chance of coming out alive, but you do have a good chance of seriously injuring or killing him. Because of the latter I would consider your death glorious if you attempted to fight but failed and got killed, even if you couldn't kill the mugger.

If the mugger is a good distance away, or you are fat and/or can't fight, if you can see clearly that you have no chance of hurting him, then of course it's not a battle-death. Again, it's just target practice for the mugger.

As I explained above, it depends on how much risk the ambusher is taking. If you are at least proving dangerous prey, your death would be worthy. If you are blindly walking into it, without having attempted to discover the ambush in any way - in other words if you are being safe prey that can be ambushed with no danger, then no you don't get a battle-death for the same reason rabbits don't go to Valhalla after being shot by a hunter: No admirable fighting spirit or warrior quality is being displayed in being killed at no risk to the killer.

And who decides that?
You're dead. He's not.

You said earlier that if you die of wounds years later then it's not a battle-death. So when is the cut off point between dying of wounds and being a battle death and dying of wounds and NOT being a battle-death?
Is it one year? a month? a day? an hour? a second?

Not true at all. Change one thing and you get an entirely different scenario. Maybe if he missed, you'd have killed him. Or maybe you'd slip and fall and die anyway. Maybe he'd stab your horse and you'd go tumbling to your death or maybe he's just shoot you with his sidearm. Or maybe you'd charge towards him, he'd miss a second time, and you'd stab him. Or maybe you'd miss and he'd stab you with his spear.

I don't know.

Or brave. Maybe the man charging the slinger is defending his homeland from Turkish invaders. Maybe he misses and the Turk spears him. Or maybe he gets a second shot and kills the Turk.
How would you know who would win in such a fight?
The Turk is dead from being hit by a bullet. By what would you judge him capable of killing the slinger had he missed?

Literally everything in war is unclear.

Not if you didn't see him. Maybe you're in the midst of a battle, you're carrying state of the art military gear, then you turn around a corner and BAM! the terrorist you were trying to kill blows your fucking head off with a lowly shotgun. You never even got the chance to fight back.
This is the same scenario as the sniper except with the enemy closer to you.

So? If a sniper missed, then you'd have the ability to counter attack. And if you hadn't been killed in a drone strike, you could have strangled the scrawny armed dweeb that killed you with your bare hands.

We're not talking about the ambusher, we're talking about the ambushed. It is not stupid to walk into an ambush if you do not know that there is one.

Okay, so if you fight back against a mugger and are physically fit but still die, you get reincarnated or whatever. Fair enough.

It's the ambushed that I'm concerned with here. The Romans of Trasimene had no idea that their commanders were leading them into an ambush that they had no hope of winning. Most were slaughtered like dogs but most at least tried to fight back.
Why should a master swordsman who has killed hundreds of people in a fair fight and is a genius and more physically fit than
200 IQ genius be deleted from existence because his idiot commander led him into an ambush or he stepped on a landmine?
Why should a scrawny, low IQ retard go to war-heaven because he got lucky and fired off a few shots at that same guy earlier before being killed?

Your brain does. After you actually die, it's irrelevant, unless you believe in an afterlife. But just as you make your attack, you gauge your odds and act so as to ensure you will either be the victor, or if the opponent is worthy, that you will die a battle-death. In order to be capable of this, you must of course live your whole life venerating the warrior spirit and cultivate this mindset of seeking a battle-death and avoiding a foolish death. Thus you become a manly and honorable person, which is why the concept of battle-death is held in such importance across many cultures - it is a vital mechanism of promoting healthy male gender roles.

I didn't say that, must be someone else. All torpedos share ID, you know. If you want my take, then if you didn't die, there's no problem. If you killed the guy, great. If you ran away or were incapacitated, that's cowardly and/or shameful, but no matter - you're still alive, you can fight another day. If say you were crippled, spend next several months in bed, and then died in your sleep - that's a shit situation, and such deaths from injury or disease were traditionally feared by warriors, which is why they were eager for battle and would rather charge into melee and risk death, than be rescued by healers and risk becoming cripples with no chance of a good death.

Probability is not changed because an improbable event happened. Winning the lottery doesn't become likely because you just won. Of course, history is how we estimate probabilities, but it is important to understand that probabilities exist a posteriori, and changing our estimate of the probability is not the same as the true probability changing. In relation to the warrior spirit, a warrior shouldn't be entirely clueless, but accurate statistical estimation is IMO not vital for a warrior. It is however vital that whetever he feels the odds to be, he respond to them in a manly way, so as to ensure that if he does die, the death will be a battle-death. And on the topic of feelings, I think the brain is actually really good at these estimations, it takes all that stuff you said into account. Of course, if you are raised right and have discipline, it is of course a lot more accurate. But ultimately a man need not second guess his instincts on what precisely the odds are - the important thing is to strive to act such that if possible, he is the victor, but if he is to die, the opponent must pay dearly, or at least risk his own hide.

Actually, ancient people did not consider it brave to charge into a hopeless situation, but stupid. Note, when I say "hopeless", I don't mean not having hope of survival. To a warrior, his own death is of relatively minor significance. I mean hope of doing your enemy harm. Which is why the Spartans at Thermopylae are revered as heros, even though they went into a battle with no hope of survival: They did have hope of killing many Persians.

It's not about if you saw him, but if you could have. If it's night and he's got the best NV gear but you have night blindness, you're fucked, you need to GTFO there because if you get shot it will be a pathetic, shameful death. You need to use your brains to avoid such situations, and resist commanders that put you in them. One of the commander's duties is to provide a battle-death for his casualties. If he fails in this, he doesn't deserve to command.

If you are actively searching for the ambush, or also laying your own ambushes during the campaign, then the ambusher is taking a risk. You could discover the ambuscade and, as the saying goes, make him pay the intended mischief with interest. Moreover, today you fell for his ambush, yesterday he could have fallen for yours.

This is different from a naive soldier who doesn't bother to collect intelligence or learn how to spot ambushes when he had the opportunity (if he never had the opportunity, of course he can't be faulted for it). Or even worse, a soldier who knows there's an ambush but walks into it anyway with no clear plan. Sometimes soldiers are compelled to walk into ambushes by commanders, I think this robs them of a chance for battle-death. They're better off mutinying and dying to the commander's guard, or military police, or whoever it would be.

I think it's immaterial whether you get reincarnated. Obviously our ancestors were more spiritual and thought in those terms. But the essence of it is that you understand the difference between a battle-death and an inglorious one, which then makes you realize that you have to live your whole life in a certain way so as to maximize your chances of dying a battle-death. This way so happens to be a manly one that is conducive to a healthy society.

So they have lost some honor in that they could not judge their commander better. But remember that battle-death is individual, not collective. Even if the army was obliterated, some individual men in it killed a Carthaginian before they died - those for sure had battle-deaths. The others, it's hard to say without knowing the circumstances in detail.

Excellent question. I'm just reasoning from first principle here, but I think the answer is that part of the attaining the warrior spirit is knowing that not everyone is worth following. Idiot commanders should be removed or at least resisted, not obeyed. Based on this, I would say that enlisting and getting sent to Iraq is actually bad idea, because you risk dying a dishonorably and have little opportunity for a battle-death. It would behoove you to seek worthier death elsewhere.

If the swordsman was so foolish as to get killed by a scrawny kid, maybe he's not such a great warrior after all. Remember, it's about spirit and how you choose to act, not physical fitness. And if the kid managed to come up with some stratagem that allowed him to kill a great warrior, I'd say that's respectable. However not relevant to the idea of a battle-death if he doesn't risk death.