What period of warfare was the most traumatic to fight in...

What period of warfare was the most traumatic to fight in? I've heard people say everything from the Roman era to modern times.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (700x467, 93.34K)

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2923799/Did-ancient-warriors-suffer-PTSD-Texts-reveal-battles-3-000-years-ago-left-soldiers-traumatised-saw.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crécy
theporporbooksblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/heavy-metal-magazine-april-1981-heavy.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There is only so much a human's mind can take. I'm sure every war has had some moment that would cause anyone to loose it. It really depends on the person.
For me personally, the most traumatic is knowing you are the only one protecting your family and everything you hold true but also knowing you will eventually loose i.e. Seige of Constantinople, Battle of Berlin, Fall of Rhodesia

Overall: WWII
True hell: Japanese side from WWII

I think by definition there isn't such a thing as a war that isn't somewhat traumatic to fight in assuming you're actually, you know. Fighting.

WW1 is arguably the worst.
Technological growing pains, commanders adapting to new styles of combat, an extreme shortage of soldiers at any given time, Germany being so poor during the war their citizens were as well fed as the prisoners they took, soldiers unable to be pulled from muddy shell craters and drowning overnight, the constant fear of getting shot if you stood too tall or getting raided at night, etc. etc.

If you read accounts from the war, that shit is pretty grim and nobody was prepared going into it.


OP was thinking more of the worst time for warfare rather than "is war traumatic".

Doesn't matter what shit you see. If you have seen shit, it's going to stick with you.

I will never understand WWI. I don't know if anyone who took part in it even understands it. WWII makes sense because at least the staggering death tolls were dispersed across the entire planet and were mostly the result of units trapped between a rock and a hard place or the deliberate massacre of civilians.

But what can explain something like the Somme, where Britain squandered over 60,000 soldiers in one place, in one day, in a single mass attack, and then immediately tried it again, and again and again and again? How is it that military leadership in the 1910's could stomach a waste of life on this magnitude when in almost any other time in history it would be unthinkable to sacrifice 60,000 or even 10,000 men all at once?

I'm fairly sure there is nothing in the ancient literature referring to "shellshock" or "ptsd".
Back then they weren't getting mutilated by artillery shells either…

Back then men weren't absolute pussies either.

No wonder they really thought that was "the war to end all wars".

not true, i know this is a dailymail article but it lists plenty of examples of ancient soldiers getting ptsd like symptoms dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2923799/Did-ancient-warriors-suffer-PTSD-Texts-reveal-battles-3-000-years-ago-left-soldiers-traumatised-saw.html

WW1.
Prior to Verdun battle neither side had figure out you needed to ROTATE troops regularly (which is what Petain invented).
They just sent regiments someplace, let them there, fill them with new bodies. People were medically discharged and that was it.

Lots will say WW1 because the response to improvements in mass producing arms especially artillery and machine guns was to confront something never before seen head on without sufficient mental preparation. So, maybe if you dig deeper into ancient wars you'll find something similar if not more traumatic. For instance, siege by disease corpses of your fallen soldiers had to be pretty traumatic for those defending walls of a castle or city. Which artillery is more traumatic? The slow death of disease and morale, or the quick death of disease and morale? It depends on how used to seeing decaying corpses and coming to the realization that you'll be like that when the walls are breached.

Attached: divers_wolgemut.jpg (1514x1300, 747.74K)

This.
Retards claiming that it was WWI have never read on medieval sieges or mass slaughter. The closest thing to true traumatic experience in a modern war is fighting as a Jap on Iwo Jima. And even that is debatable.

You're all stupid fucking faggots. Holy fucking shit. I can barely fucking type, no fucking excuse for ignorance, blow your brains out for the Kube.That twatcake Lindybeige did a video on this go watch that.

Attached: high blood pressure.jpg (300x300 21.61 KB, 555.05K)

WWI was a medieval siege the size of a country.
What?
Did you think they buried people that fell in no man's land? That they didn't starve? That they weren't eaten alive by rats when they fell asleep? That they didn't spent months in their own shit and getting regularly sprayed by cadaver juice every time the artillery would pummel the line?

The coming war…

Attached: adious soldado.webm (640x480, 6.99M)

Is that an animated film/short? Google gives me nothing.

Attached: 1411632468645.jpg (1230x960, 352.48K)

Uh oh guys, we made this strelok mad somehow for some reason that he won't specify because he's too busy thinking about dicks!

Is that child smoking a cig?

I think it's some kind of lollypop or candy or maybe a whistle. Too thick to be a cigarette.

I was thinking that all of those things apply to medieval sieges aside from the intensity of cadaver spraying from more powerful artillery. Who knows though. Maybe people die just as messily when hit with corpses too.

I'd rather be stuck in a muddy trench and die from shrapnel in the face than be stuck for years in a rotting city under siege where half the population that I was meant to protect dies of starvation and disease and we eat the bodies because we have absolutely nothing else left. Meanwhile the enemy launches random attacks on the walls to stop us from getting even a few hours of rest and in the night cooks food and sings to make us feel even more miserable and hopeless.
Then once the enemy does break into the city, moments before I die I know for a fact that the enemy will chop my head off, stick it on a spear and parade it around like a trophy. My body and the bodies of my comrades will be eaten by pigs and every civilian left alive in the city will be brutally raped and slaughtered.

WWI was fucked, but Medieval sieges were on a whole other level.

...

Pfft, Verdun and the Somme make most Medieval sieges look like a day spa.

Even in the longest medieval sieges the besieged lived in their home town, with some supplies being smuggled through the siege lines.

In WW1 troops did not get to live in a city, they lived in mud, shell craters, dugouts and ruins where all of the same conditions of the worst medieval siege were present. Disease, vermin, poor nutrition etc etc, not to mention new memes like intermittent mortar fire suddenly blowing you up, artillery barrages that annihilated the environment so badly that the scars can still be seen from the air, being told to march through waist deep mud while under machine gun fire and, finally, the use chemical weapons.

Buddy if you think medieval sieges have shit on WW1 then you need to re read your history.

I woulsnt say they were pussies but it is obvious that as technology progresses people are continuing to grow soft.

No medieval siege lasted long unless they actually had like a couple of years worth of grains stockpiled, defenders would either make sortie or find an agreement long before dying of starvation.
Because when a long siege did happened the besiegers often starved out before the besieged and since most medieval conflicts were about money, both sides quickly came to arrangements.

I think the only case of serious medieval cannibalism in a siege was in China (as in as a good chink lord, the general in charge ordered his soldiers to execute the entire civilian population of the city and eat them. To his defense he was defending a crucial fortress on a network and his delaying action indeed brought victory to his side).

Also the whole idea of a siege is that you always have hope of getting relieved.
In WWI the only hope to get out of a frontline was catching a bullet (which is why so many soldiers mutilated themselves at the risk of being executed).

It's a whistle.

I would say medieval and earlier would be the worst, fighting with melee weapons is brutal as fuck and then some rich kid noble rides by on an armoured horse and shatters your shoulder with a mace.

Not so fast bucko

Attached: 10-interesting-facts-english-longbowman_1.jpg (400x519, 34.07K)

The term you are looking for is "warriors heart", it has changed names several times over the centuries but the symptoms are always the same.


Bows are fine because you have to be upper class to have time to learn it, other than that you would be accused of poaching.
Crossbows on the other hand are tools of the devil that allow even an unskilled farm hand to penetrate a nobles armour.

Attached: Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg (560x354, 78.75K)

Don't worry, they fixed it in Passchendaele. Now you can comfortably run while under machine gun fire.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1600x1227, 375.86K)

I believe there were also a few cases of cannibalism during the crusades, but those were rare and heavily frowned upon by the leaders of the armies.

Berlin 1945
Dresden 1945
Breslau 1945
Hamburg 1943

additionally in medieval times combat was much more skill focused and you could win just by being plain better then the enemy, while during ww1 you die to random shrapnel and gas no matter how good at shooting you are

these arent even that bad compared to some shit that happened in history, like that fort/bunker during ww1 where to prevent germans from gaining high ground during assault they gassed themselfs and stayed in it for 2 days fending off germs with bayonets. fort voix?
or that time when germans and russians fought during ww2 in that city in crimea theodosiopolis? and it was only reported use of gas masks during the whole war because of smell of corpses in cannals. or any brit assault since they are worsethen russians. its like they want to genocide their own soldiers en masse

Attached: Crouching Tiger Hidden Body.webm (1920x1080, 1001.01K)

What the fuck was wrong with China?

Attached: decisive tang victory.png (500x429, 97.11K)

they were always heartless bug people

Attached: onahola cooking.png (400x400 2.7 MB, 420.53K)

The English had mandatory archery training for peasants.

That's because the vast majority of OUR medieval sieges was as defendants against mudslimes, the majority of them being turkroaches. I am willing to bet that most of European intraracial sieges were barely worse than WWI trenchcrawling and in most cases shorter and the only objectively worst part was the fate of the defending warriors if they were defeated.

I thought the reason crossbows were invented was because traditional bows allowed metallic armour to exist.

crossbows were invented by chinese and were used for breaking mongol cavalry charges
ancient romans at the end at least already knew crossbows but mainly used big as fuck scorpions/ballistas or probably as hunting weapon
and bows have nothing to do with development of better armor

Read about the Battle of Agincourt. 7,000 English longbowmen annihilated the French army that outnumbered them 3-1. Cavalry: completely wiped out. French knights and men at arms advanced across fields of freshly ploughed mud headfirst into a storm of arrows so thick that they were getting killed through the slit visors of their bascinets. Longbow arrows could also penetrate armored extremities.

Attached: [Screams internally].jpg (1614x554 106.54 KB, 66.68K)

actually, why didnt they just retreat and come back at better time? its not like enemy will run away since they have huge cavalry advantage
i guess frogs would sperg over muh honor or something as always

What. The. Fuck.
I heave heard stories of people eating books, rats and dogs to survive, even stories about people eating those who died of injury or starvation.
But who the FUCK decides to just kill a couple of people for dinner instead of giving up? What kind of loyalty is this? These people didn't "stay loyal", they turned into monsters! They literally ate the population of the city they were meant to protect. If 30.000 people were eaten and only 400 people were left, why did nobody get the idea that maybe surrendering would not only cause less trouble, but also reduce the number of FUCKING CORPSES YOU HAVE TO EAT IN YOUR LIFE. Even if your captors would kill or enslave you, why not just commit suicide then?
Why didn't the attackers decide to storm the city alredy? If there were more than 10.000 people inside the city it would take at least that number of people to besiege it, right? Maybe a few more or less, but it's not like these 10.000 soldiers couldn't walz over 1.000 half starved faggots. Even if they had the most defencible position imaginable, like a megafortess you used to see in the old "post pic of your base in zombie apocalypse" threads, I still doubt that they would have lost against people so malnourished that they turned into cannibals.
Please don't tell me they didn't wait at least a week after all non-human food ran out to start eating each other.

Sounds like they were a bunch of sociopaths being turboautistic about not losing any face, even if they had to dehumanize themselves and face a plate of human flesh.

They saved the face as leftovers for tomorrow.

That's a bit on the nose, don't you think?

The French were determined not to let the English leave the country so they set up a blockade. The French held the maxim that "if you stand completely still and don't attack, you'll surely win" which worked great for them with the Magniot Line a few hundred years later. So they let the English set up cavalry defenses first, then charged with their cavalry after the English provoked them. When that failed the whole army attacked in their arrogance, because "britbong arrows can't penetrate frog steel".

A literal mountain of bodies started to form at the front of the French line so that all the subsequent frogs exhausted themselves trying to scale it and couldn't even lift their weapons afterwards. By the time they thought about running away the English longbowmen had taken up entrenching tools, flanked the army, and began beating the shit out of the knights in close combat.

Chinks are fucking weird yo

Attached: ef03c3bb0accd17a94e5261cfe55c7284625ee0e0affa4b13c8691111eccb993.jpg (1008x720, 69.14K)

True. You try saying that around chinks and you'll get an earful.

This was because the mud and the confusion resulted from it rather than longbow.

Longbow contributed, greatly, no doubt.

That has not come yet, my sweet summer child.

Attached: Tesla.jpg (400x300 61.15 KB, 20.26K)

By far the best bit of the battle was the individual French knights surrendering to the peasants thinking they knew about the chivalric code (you have to take them prisoner) and the peasants just throwing them to the ground and stabbing them through their visors.

We then proceeded to do it again at Crecy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crécy

Thus starting a long line of consistently beating the French, just don't mention Joan of Arc she is a crossdressing whore of the French king.

Then begin the fall, and the French got the world's first professional army (yes AFTER Joan of Arc) and whipped the Brits out of France.

But that's another story for another day.

Henry V died shortly after Agincourt as well, and Henry VI was…terrible.

lmao wtf am I on about, Crecy was before Agincourt, need some more caffeine in me.


We kinda had years of civil going on, came back into form during Henry 7/8th though

English longbows were so awesome that they were replaced with wooden sticks with pipes strapped to them that shot a piece of rock or metal once every 2 minutes. Sorry to say, the whole longbow thing is a piece of English mythology more than history.

I'll say WW1 was without a doubt the worst. Melee combat in the olden days didn't traumatize people nearly as much because you actually fought an enemy face to face, you came to terms with him. Even the losers who left the field at least had a chance to fight and see the enemy face to face.

WW1 was little more than waiting in a trench filled with mud and water waiting to be randomly blown up by an artillery shell. The frontal charges of the old days lead to hand to hand combat that allowed you to come to grips with your enemy, in later wars leap frogging and movement gave you the feeling that you were on the move, that you could do something. WW1 was frontal charges into artillery, machine guns, and bolt action rifles in prepared lines, suicide to "go over the top" or waiting in your trench, HELPLESS as you wonder if the next random artillery shell is yours. And there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

You sat in a trench. Maybe you might move at some point… to another trench. You got to look around and see trenches and mud. Watch your feet rot off in the mud. Wait for that random artillery shell. Just waiting.

Its helpful for morale for the troops to move, to get a chance to fight back effectively, to feel they can fight. In every way, the trench fighter was in a horrible condition, everything was terrible. No great victories, no great offenses, defense was rotting away in constant threat from the big guns. Hell.

That's why it was called shell shock, because it really wasn't seen nearly as much before. People were tougher from a tougher life, and as I said, melee is far easier on a man. He fights, he comes to terms, he is not helpless.

Attached: burd.PNG (252x213, 104.3K)

The problem is that no one mentions drawbacks.

Yes it had a long range, but at that range wind can carry an arrow enough to miss an entire formation heading toward you. It was very long and unweildy, people were shorter back then not taller, and the damn thing was two meters in length. It was also very expensive in terms of training, no one factors in how many hours per day peasants had to spend training instead of doing peasant things, which was shit on the economy.

Bows had a lot of drawbacks. More than any other weapon in history, actually. In fact you had to draw them back every time you shoot.

It was every Saturday morning for 2-3 hours for every peasant in England iirc, it was a day off for most people so it didn't do anything to the economy.

no shit it had drawbacks and it wasn't even the best ranged weapon of the time, it just performed well enough to make it's place in history

The point is the value of the bows were exaggerated. It wasn't just bows that won the early part of the war. The ability for arrows to pierce armor was exaggerated, many knights were taken alive even after the barrage. The myth that the peasant army was superior to the warrior class was the biggest of all.

I hear Anglo historians, even the American ones, sit around and jerk off and go "That was the end of cavalry and the rise of the infantry as dominant force in Europe, yes indeed the English longbow changed history forever and we should have listened to Crecy and we could have avoided WW1 entirely!". Considering the heavy cavalry still dominated for another 300 years, considering that tercios were designed to stop heavy cavalry, considering it was changes in the military structure overall and guns that finally changed things for good, not bows, all points to these claims as being well over the damned top.

Those were some great victories, I agree, but the long bow's use there has been abused by many to push this agenda or that, to make one false claim or another.

Much of its "importance" today is retrospect, to "explain" why we should have seen WW1 trench warfare almost 600 years before it happened, to "explain" why we should have seen the "superiority" of the left wing ideal of the citizen solider and the "grandiosity" of forced mass conscription. It was a great tale to lie about after the first world war and a great setup for WW2 and the Cold War.

It also is a huge component of left wing red bullshit. Trying to convince Johnny Everyman that he can stand up to professional soldiers when the gloried revolution comes. Also useful to helping to disarm and destroy Europe's standing armies because "Johnny Everyman can just be conscripted and thrown into the meat grinder next time anyhow, why do we need a pro army".

Better hope it's not raining on the day you want to use those fancy bows.

Fun fact: We actually won Crecy because of the rain, the longbowmen put their bowstrings in their pockets while the French/Genoese crossbowmen had to sit with their weapons out in the rain.

Attached: archers.jpg (730x430, 61.24K)

Or we just hear more about it now?

Yeah I'm sure there were no injuries.

The funny this is centuries later you had the battle of Vienna which is almost he opposite of Crecy. An army full of infantry armed with bows and rifles defeated by armored cavalry armed with lances and swords.

Sunday is the day of rest lad, most medieval peasants only worked 150 days a year.

England had to give up the bow in the age of gunpowder since they'd cut down all their yew trees.

They were striving for one attack that would end it all. The Somme only happened because the Germans had the plan of bleeding the French Army white at Verdun and they damn well got close enough that the French army mutinied shortly after that affair. Even the spring offensive was aimed at making a wedge between armies and marching right through France unimpeded.

Kursk, Stalingrad, Leningrad. I'd say Kursk was the worst for the tide broke and rolled back.

More of they knocked all their Yew down and Portuguese couldn't keep up to the demand as well, also it takes fucking forever to train a dingdong to use a bow correctly where as with a musket its a month tops. The Duke of Wellington wanted longbowmen for this Iberian campaign but it was estimated by the time they had them trained it'd be long over.

The only thing on the nose here is some spices for flavoring.

ww3 not nukes but smart weapons.

Why do people complain about number of people who've died in the recent conflicts?

What would have had happened if he had longbowmen?

...

Because they don't know what real suffering is. They don't know what its like to do with ersatz goods because the slightly less ersatz stuff is at the front or knowing that 75% of your family including extended relatives are dead or have been horribly maimed. There hasn't been a good war in a long fucking time and I can tell you right now if one started those people would be the first to riot and be shot, good fucking riddance.

Probably use them as some sort of skirmisher or someone fairly behind the men with muskets i.e constant firepower, I haven't exactly read into it.

Because their sacrifices accomplished nothing.

Where is Francebro? I want to see his arguments against the Cressy battle.

THE FIRST BATTLE I BEAT HIM

I have read that drowning in the mud was the most common cause of death at Agincourt. Sure longbows are good but wearing full plate in knee deep mud is suicide.

Literally the weather.

Again, same for Agincourt, God seems to favor the English in these battles and bless them with mud and rain.

I read a book on the history of WWI aviators. According to it, at first, before arming aircraft further than pilot carried revolvers, pilots basically acted like bros to one another. After mounted guns came along, it turned to competitiveness, each pilot trying to prove themselves as the best. By war's end, every veteran pilot seemed to have become an utterly jaded sociopath or suicidally apathetic.

Come to think of it didn't the french lose Waterloo because of shitty weather as well?

>True hell: Japanese side concentration camps from WWII
FTFY

Remember lads, Jesus was British.

Attached: 1129-church-england-constitutional-crisis_full_600.jpg (600x400, 70.62K)

You just blow in front reddit? Auschwitz had a pool, regular soccer games, concerts, a library, and a fucking museum. Only at the end of the war would things've become shit because of no food and disease, but that doesn't even remotely compare to jap Unit 731 and their POW camps.

Overall I'd say the World War I period of chemical warfare wins out. Up until that point wars were a pretty rules-based affair with clear goals to establish a winner. New designs came out like cavalry and guns, but war was more or less the same affair and you could expect reasonable accommodations even if you lost, with most injuries either killing you outright or just causing you to lose a limb to infection. Even with one arm or with a missing leg you could still be a functional human being.

World War 1 saw the introduction of nerve gas/chemical weapons, widespread use of machine guns, & artillery that would effectively blind you, possibly deafen you, possibly castrate you, paralyze half your body, etc. Instead of dying, the possible fate of becoming a useless human being who could only work in a select few fields of work became a possibility, and if the chemicals didn't kill you now, they'd kill you later. There was a thing called a "Death March" up until that point that less-developed nations employed to get within effective range without wasting the stamina of your troops where as long as you weren't in the very front, you were probably safe. With the introduction of machine weaponry, death marches were basically suicide for the entire army. No longer would you just have to fear death or a missing limb, but you'd have to fear what you'd do if you didn't die in the war. There's a reason that shit was banned in various treaties/conventions on war when every weapon up to that point was fair game.

Except to my knowledge even the fucking Sandniggers didn't do this shit at the level you're describing because the people in the city were considered as if not more valuable than the city itself. This never happened historically, only in your Viking fantasies Greece. The raping and pillaging yes, but Christians & Pagans were a source of taxable income so they were generally left alive following a siege whether it was Sandniggers or Vikings or Romans doing the raiding. Even soldiers would be left alive if they agreed to conscript into the enemy army or in some cases if they agreed to going back to being a simple farmer/producing crops that could be taxed. The only people who got absolutely annihilated were the royalty/friends of royalty.

Attached: 0a8b5845660591309e93b0aef3ecd9cb21762978cca386e07b29d3346338d6ff.jpg (1000x1000, 493.09K)

I came here to post this.

I mean it's like how historically, in most of the wars (at least between nearby civilizations) the death tolls tended to be fairly low compared to the actual population because it wasn't a viable long-term plan to rape and murder everything since it would just get your enemies riled up to come invade you in your weakened state if a survivor got away and told the tale of what happened. Even in Russia the Golden Hordes very rarely did this shit at the level you're describing, and even then it was usually because they killed the majority of the enemy command or some royalty using an underhanded tactic. Castle/siege wars were a largely civil affair post-siege.

You won so much you got confined on a island for 3 centuries.

Ah the British selective memory.

Whatever you say Abdul.

It takes an average of about three times an enemy's forces to effectively siege a fortified fort/castle, just as a reference. You could probably get away with double the enemy's forces in a prolonged siege, but if you didn't have at least that much you would fail due to the enemy's defensive advantage. Or at least that was common military knowledge back in the day.

Why am I not surprised

Underrated smartassery.

It seems it was written by one of your countrymen argiebro, anyways here is the full strip.

Attached: sold 5.jpg (1148x1600 439 KB, 444.75K)

t.

Attached: download.jpg (5616x2989, 4.18M)

Attached: sold 10.jpg (1143x1600 477.83 KB, 443.31K)

Awesome, the narrator in the video sounded Argentinian and the artstyle has an Eternauta vibe to it so it figures. Do you know the name of the author by any chance?

Attached: 1412302345868.png (152x331, 84.65K)

Yes!,written by Ricardo Barreiro, and the art by Juan Giminez.
At least according to this link:
theporporbooksblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/heavy-metal-magazine-april-1981-heavy.html

Attached: Ricardo Barreiro.jpg (312x350, 23.37K)