At what point did religious fanaticism stop being a useful trait in shock troops?

At what point did religious fanaticism stop being a useful trait in shock troops?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    allahu akhbar

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Right up until the time I fricked your mom in the ass so hard that she gave birth to you.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's still useful after that, but yeah would agree it was a high point when you remodeled OP's mom's butthole.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Never. Being completely insane is always a tactical advantage during assaults

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, the best fighters accept they will die and if believing in magic helps so be it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      More or less correct

      The advent of machineguns.

      https://i.imgur.com/RazAB8H.jpeg

      When machineguns were invented.

      Fanatics with automatic weapons become equally more capable of mass slaughter. Many famous enlistedmen owe their officer-like panoply of medals and awards to a machinegun and a heart full of devotion - Simo and Audie, for two.

      Religious fervor is a both a shortcut (with tradeoffs) to and means of reproducing that fanaticism. Where zealots err is relying on it to the exclusion of other more (or equally) practical force multipliers.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Believing strongly in an afterlife helps one risk their life.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was never a useful trait in a tactical sense. It was and still is a good way to motivate an army if you don't have enough of the stuff a normal army is supposed to have. It doesn't replace any of those things on the ground though, arab armies still suck.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes it was especially during formation fighting. It helped men to keep the formation because losing it most likely meant losing the battle.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The advent of machineguns.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >OP img
    they're all too clean. if i was running a reenactment thingie, i'd have everyone roll around in various forms of dirt for a few hours. maybe wrestle in their costumes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The French were notorious for wearing bright white, you're just Hollywood brained

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When machineguns were invented.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Blacks were never effective that's a poor example.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        WW1 proves the point

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Never heard about the Harlem Hellfighters, have you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Blacks armed by whites, trained by whites, coordinated by whites, supplied by whites, supported by whites
          >End up taking more casualties than any other regiment

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          American blacks were purposefully bred to be the best they can possibly be. Unfortunately for them, the project was never finished.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Getting yourself domed in a futile gunfight for an express ticket to paradise instead of being smart and facing the pain of retreat, surviving and fighting on is an issue for certain types of fundamentalist. Ultimately troops that want to live are going to fight harder and be more effective.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Widespread breech loading and rifled firearms.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Never. Its utility went down as firepower of armies went up, but it never went away entirely.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Peace of Westphalia

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When was it actually useful? Even armies that tried to emphasize mass numbers for offensive campaigns like Napoleon's weren't religious.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When war crimes began to be routinely punished.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >religious fanaticism stop being a useful trait in shock troops
    Citation needed

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Discipline trumped fanaticism since around 1400.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Discipline has always beat fanaticism, anon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Discipline + fanaticism always beats discipline alone.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >stop

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    when the d/k ratio is greater than your pool of recruits

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When weapons became so casualty producing that line formations became obsolete. Looks like swedish troops there and they were very successful because they had autistic discipline and would break the enemy units by using regimental artillery and close in on the enemy in hand to hand combat. But when machine guns and heavy artillery came into play that strategy didn't work anymore.

    If you use religion in a smart way and use it to not fear death it can work. If you're doing the inshallah attitude and just hope for the best without planning anything you're gonna lose.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When one guy with a machine gun could beat a company worth of fanatics

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    would it be worse if your fanatics obeyed orders ?
    to my mind part of the effectiveness of fanatics is that they can act unpredictably and show up where and when they are unexpected.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how the frick would troops you have no control over be useful?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        area denial, and they do sometimes obey

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          we did nothing wrong
          everyplace and everyone in the dender streek deserves to pillaged, sacked and much worse
          although the description is probably wrong considering we where allied against the count in that one, did sack them twice later on tough

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1360 treaty of Brétigny signed
            >mercenaries refuse to disband
            >15 k mercs go rouge and start reeving the country side
            >a bunch of them capture and loot the castle of Joinville
            >Pope of Avignon so mad he calls for an anti merc crusade
            >Crusaders join in on the reeving instead
            >King John II pays the marauders to stop and go home
            kek

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It happened right around the time where having your troops survive the battle became more important than having them win it, which would be WW2 in my book

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >At what point did religious fanaticism stop being a useful trait in shock troops?
    >stop
    it never was

    combat is decided by the ability to not die and make the enemy die
    being willing to die has no positive effect

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Useful trait in actually trained shock troops who will move when they actually need to and due to their fearlessness might push through and overrun and destroy the enemy completely
    >But zeal is only a temporary solution to actual training, because sooner rather than later untrained fanatics will charge blindly into machine gun or automatic fire and get cut down

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Caroleans were not some Boko Haram snowBlack folk who shot their muskets over their heads and asked Luther to guide their bullets. They were disciplined and professional soldiers, and their faith served the purpose of strengthening those qualities.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What said, there's a huge difference between religious fanaticism and religiously motivated discipline, the best example of the latter would be Cromwell and Omar al-Mukhtar. Both were men whose military careers only started at a much later age. At most, Mukhtar would have had some basic experience in horseriding and Cromwell may have been part of some local militia, but neither saw active combat. However, they both led the premier fighting force in their respective nations. Both of them structured their armies based on religious zeal, but also strict religious discipline. They were completely obedient and focused on formation. Cromwell performed simple maneuvers that required less "military prowess" and more drilling, discipline and cohesion. Mukhtar's contributions were mostly driving his troops' faith and ensuring that his men were led by those of meritocracy over nobility/political status.
      The opposite of that is the Moro Warriors, a bunch of morons who gathered a group of screaming morons together to charge at their enemies without fear. They may have been pretty scary and left an impression, but they all ended up dying

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    October 8th

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >religious fanaticism

    It is about motivation, and it doesn't have to be religious in nature. Ukraine calls their not-Azov guys, those who are willing to go into enemy trenches to get the Russians intimately acquainted with lead out of a silenced barrel, as "highly motivated." It's almost like a nation wide-meme, and definitely a euphemism in many circles, when someone is called "highly motivated" you know they have a couple of interesting tattoos, or that they wouldn't be against getting some.

    Good on them. I hope most of them live long lives and procreate lots.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *