Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 20th, 2017, 09:24 AM   #11

Murffy's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2017
From: Minneapolis
Posts: 326

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Vietnamese View Post
Inb4 Alexander troops, Roman legions, China imperial army, Soviet red shirts and British gentlemen didnt rape or pillage.
Right, they just "appropriated" stuff and, naturally, enemy women were eager partners.
Murffy is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 21st, 2017, 02:04 AM   #12
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Pomerium
Posts: 560

Think about it: why do some perpetrators (e.g., Nazis, Soviets) cover up & deny their atrocities? Because their troops and people aren't maniacal and barbaric enough (as the steppes hordes were) to find their perpetration morale-boosting.
Fenestella is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 04:17 AM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Portugal
Posts: 1,165

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenestella View Post
Think about it: why do some perpetrators (e.g., Nazis, Soviets) cover up & deny their atrocities? Because their troops and people aren't maniacal and barbaric enough (as the steppes hordes were) to find their perpetration morale-boosting.
Nazis, Soviets, British, Americans, etc are from the 20th to 21st centuries. That's what we do now. We deny atrocities.

Steppe hordes are from Antiquity and Middle Ages, like Romans, Greeks, Moors, Franks, Vikings, etc.
Pict is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 06:13 AM   #14
Suspended until October 11th, 2018
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: meo
Posts: 1,309

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenestella View Post
Think about it: why do some perpetrators (e.g., Nazis, Soviets) cover up & deny their atrocities? Because their troops and people aren't maniacal and barbaric enough (as the steppes hordes were) to find their perpetration morale-boosting.
There's nothing to think about it. Modern states live in the global era with people developing new standard of morals and value of life so army cant simply rape, pillage and massacre freely nor there's much benefits about it anymore. Comparing nowadays view to the old view and use it to drive your point is an atrocious crime.
A Vietnamese is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 07:43 AM   #15

Murffy's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2017
From: Minneapolis
Posts: 326

Perhaps barbarians were simply honest about the nature of the beast.
Murffy is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 10:05 AM   #16
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Pomerium
Posts: 560

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pict View Post
Nazis, Soviets, British, Americans, etc are from the 20th to 21st centuries. That's what we do now. We deny atrocities.

Steppe hordes are from Antiquity and Middle Ages, like Romans, Greeks, Moors, Franks, Vikings, etc.
Even in Antiquity and Middle Ages, only the most barbarian groups didn't have the linguistic and rhetorical skills to whitewash/deny their atrocities - the definition of βάρβαρος (barbarus).
Fenestella is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 11:11 AM   #17

turing's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: Antalya
Posts: 515

The OP is obviously obsessed with steppe people. It wasn't their problem that they face-rolled pretty much anyone, because their enemies were so weak.
turing is offline  
Old April 21st, 2017, 11:15 AM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,365

Killing goes against human nature. As with any other activity, it's difficult the first time but gets easier with repetition. While I can't cite specific examples, I'm sure it happened more than once that a victorious army massacred their prisoners as a way to blood their younger warriors. If any warriors had shirked killing in the recent battle, some repetitive killing of the prisoners would make it easier for these men to kill armed enemies in the next battle. To the extent that mass killing contributes to a more cohesive and more effective army, then a massacre could increase morale. I know that in some warrior societies young men were encouraged to hunt as a way to get them over their natural reluctance to kill. Prisoners could serve the same purpose.
Chlodio is online now  
Old April 21st, 2017, 12:23 PM   #19

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 16,246

Back in the olden days, one would have to slice the other chap's abdomen open and watch the intestines spool out onto the ground.

And that's what he would see on the back of his eyelids when he closed them to go to sleep every night for the rest of his life.
Lucius is online now  
Old April 21st, 2017, 06:13 PM   #20
Suspended until October 11th, 2018
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: meo
Posts: 1,309

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenestella View Post
Even in Antiquity and Middle Ages, only the most barbarian groups didn't have the linguistic and rhetorical skills to whitewash/deny their atrocities - the definition of βάρβαρος (barbarus).
Certainly the runestones was not made by the "barbarians" to boast about their "atrocities", right?
A Vietnamese is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
atrocities, barbarian, boost, commiting, morale, troops



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Treatments of family members of individuals commiting high treason Fenestella General History 20 November 7th, 2015 03:29 PM
How well trained were Crassus' troops? and Pompey's troops... Mrbsct Ancient History 12 September 12th, 2013 08:05 PM
Morale Salah War and Military History 45 May 6th, 2012 07:10 AM
last stand morale KingCoel1996 War and Military History 30 February 8th, 2010 05:05 PM
Hannibal's Troops before/after Cannae vs Scipios Troops at Zama Colin Arthen Ancient History 5 February 3rd, 2010 04:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.