GENIUS FORUMS

Carl G wrote: These incredible statistics do not evidence to me the soldier's lack of will to fight, as you argue. They illustrate more the lack of training and fear in the face of battle. And coincidence; many men were cut down having just loaded, or before getting off their first shot.

Yes, that is probably the study I was looking at, but the author who cited them disagreed with that author's conclusion. He believes that people weren't killed before they got off a shot, but rather that they failed to shoot. This was based on evidence gained from interviews with Vietnam veterans where large numbers of people (over half, though I've forgotten specifics) admitted to never firing a shot, or to firing into the air because they could not bring themselves to take a life.

On the field of Gettysburg there were 27,574 guns picked up and of those 24,000 were found to be loaded, and half of them were double loaded. One fourth had from three to ten loads in, and many had five or six balls to one charge of powder. In some cases the powder was above the ball, in others the cartridges were not broken at the end, while in one musket twenty three balls, sixty two buckshot and a quantity of powder were all mixed up together.”

You shouldn't be interpreting this in the manner you have.

Clearly the weaponry or ammunition often malfunctioned, and were thus reloaded incorrectly in the heat of battle. To be "picked up" may just mean they were discarded and the soldiers tried to find a working weapon from some dead comrade, perhaps multiple times.

Jamesh wrote:
You shouldn't be interpreting this in the manner you have.

Clearly the weaponry or ammunition often malfunctioned, and were thus reloaded incorrectly in the heat of battle. To be "picked up" may just mean they were discarded and the soldiers tried to find a working weapon from some dead comrade, perhaps multiple times.

you're misinterpreting "picked up" - it wasn't picked up by soldiers in the heat of battle. They were picked up after the fact. I forget the exact circumstances but it was some anthropologists who picked them up. Some years ago there was a fire which cleared away the brush and left the Gettysburg site available to researchers. They found guns and bullets all over the place. However, the same studies show that there were simply not enough bullets and not enough dead people to believe that everyone involved had been firing.

This was repeated in the invasion of Veracruz where simulations have shown that the American forces should have been decimated were all of the Mexicans firing at them.

Many Vietnam vets acknowledge not firing. Or firing into the air.

WW1 soldiers were frequently seen to turn their weapons around and hit someone with the butt rather than run them through with the bayonette.

In other words, the average person just simply doesn't want to kill. We are, by nature, a social animal such as the other great apes (except orangs I think).

Katy wrote:

you're misinterpreting "picked up" - it wasn't picked up by soldiers in the heat of battle. They were picked up after the fact. I forget the exact circumstances but it was some anthropologists who picked them up. Some years ago there was a fire which cleared away the brush and left the Gettysburg site available to researchers. They found guns and bullets all over the place. However, the same studies show that there were simply not enough bullets and not enough dead people to believe that everyone involved had been firing.

I think you are confusing things. 27,000 guns were picked up after directly after the battle, and checked by the Union Army. This didn't happen years later with anthropologists. The battlefield was cleaned up, and then the townsfolk went over it, and then maybe there was a fire and a few more weapons were found.

However, the same studies show that there were simply not enough bullets and not enough dead people to believe that everyone involved had been firing.

On the contrary. Studies for the Civil War and other wars are famous for showing what massive amounts of lead were expended for such little death.

Katy wrote:We are, by nature, a social animal such as the other great apes (except orangs I think).

Being a social animal has little to do with possessing killer instincts. Consider lions and wolves, for example.

Carl G wrote: On the contrary. Studies for the Civil War and other wars are famous for showing what massive amounts of lead were expended for such little death.

Perhaps I am confusing the Vietnam study I thought showed people were firing into the air and this one indicating that. I'll look this up tomorrow and get back to you. Sorry. :)

Being a social animal has little to do with possessing killer instincts. Consider lions and wolves, for example.

True. I haven't studied wolves at all, however it is my understanding that lions don't kill eachother often at all with the exception of infanticide by new dominant males. Once they grow up they are relatively safe from being attacked by other lions. Even the young who challenge the former dominant males when they are getting old do so without death. The loser simply walks away to attempt to start a new pride.