Could you successfully train a squad of early humans in modern warfare tactics, such precise artillery fires, small unit tactics, room clearing, crew served weapon operation, etc
What about more advanced things such as operation of a main battle tank, piloting a fighter jet, bomb defusal, etc
Assuming the following -
1.they are physically and intellectually equal to a modern human, just happened to be born a long time ago.
2.they were born and raised until the age of 20 in their original time, they have been transported to modern day through miraculous circumstances. (idk time travel or frozen in ice or some shit)
3.Language barrier is not an issue
How would you do it?
>inb4 learn2paint retard
>How would you do it?
1. teach them how to plant and grow crops
2. wait 10,000 years
3. they teach themselves without me needing to do anything
it's tough to be a god.
give them nukes before they get crops, see what happens
more seriously, you should read the russian/soviet studies done on peasants and how they think and do maths etc. to understand better the difference between an educated and an uneducated mind.
boiling down a lot of work into a few sentences, uneducated minds have no capacity for abstract or logical thought. they're creatures of pure concrete fact and pragmatism.
>in the north where it always snows, all the animals are white
>there are bears in the north
>what colour are the bears in the north
an educated person says white, because they understand the logical and are capable of abstraction.
the russian peasant says brown, because all the bears he has seen are brown.
or another one
>there are no camels in germany
>berlin is a large city in germany
>are there camels in berlin?
yes, obviously, because all large cities have camels! the peasant draws from his own experience almost exclusively.
the other thing i recall was that the peasants would go to work for the gentleman of the manor and he would give their pay to the village reeve. and the reeve would then have to divide the pay out amongst the men, and this simple sum of dividing money amongst like 8 guys took several hours that night, or whatever. and the peasants were only capable of doing maths by pretending it was coins because the only maths they encountered in their lives were coins.
the answer is that you'd essentially have to put them through the entirety of primary school and some of high school before they would be mentally equipped to handle the level of abstraction required to operate in the modern world in ANY capacity. thing like flying a plane would be easy to teach because they're concrete skills, but things like using resources to accomplish military objectives on their own initiative would be much harder.
this is why a small clique of educated elites have historically always dominated human history. without education, we're just animals - in a very literal sense.
obviously a human that hasn't seen a lot or been taught can only draw off his own personal experiences. see the mango snapple webm
but i'm thinking you could atleast get a primitive squad to operate atleast on a crude base lev el of almost computer like inputs, for example in an MBT all you would have to do is point them in the right direction, teach them which pedals are gas and stop, which levers move the gun, and which button shoots, and then just kind of print a picture of what the enemy looks like and tape it to the commanders screen and use "neuron activation" strategy to get them to just blast anything that moves
sure, you can teach them to use the equipment, but you'll have to tell them what to do with it every step of the way and every single time they encounter something they weren't specifically trained on how to do they will not be able to innovate a solution and will just sit around waiting for you to tell them what to do helplessly, or run away.
think about what it's like dealing with enlisted men and then imagine that but less competent and with less initiative and less imagination.
nah, hunter gatherers would be even worse off because they'd have no experience of a society outside of their immediate familial relations. at least peasants would have experience with the concept of a larger society, even if only weakly.
but yes, in terms of actual physical characteristics, hunter gatherers > peasants > industrial workers. the agricultural revolution and industrial revolution made life much worse for the average person. it's ironic to think about human history as a march of progress when in reality, up until about ~1880, it was actually a descent into hell.
Wheat domesticated us, man.
we domesticated ourselves
We found this plant, then got hooked on the carbs and tweaked on the ergot poisoning, man. We built entire civilizations around growing more of the plant, man.
>We built entire civilizations around growing more of the plant, man.
If you think that's bad then don't look into what happened once we figured out how to boil water
>no experience of a society outside
Bro, read a book or something. Those people ware a lot more social than we are.
They covered gigantic distances and interacted with numerous other ethnic groups.
For centuries "we" had a very fucked up and incorrect perception of hunter-gatherer societies, scholars and by extension rest of society used to look down on our ancestors.
Only recently did we start to understand what them and their lives really looked like.
For example - it has been proven that people who didn't knew writing had much better memory than people who did.
yeah sure they were aware that other human beings existed but the idea of an overarching central authority that promulgates laws and adjudicates would be foreign to them. sure, they could conceive of it - "do as i say or i will hurt you" - but that's not the understanding of sovereignty that is required to function in the modern world.
a peasant would have to switch their loyalties; a hunter-gatherer would have to develop their loyalties. see the difference?
hunter-gatherers > peasants
It's true. But it only took 2-3 generations to turn peasants into humans again.
Its mind staggering if you think about it, but peasantry was literally turning humans into sub-humans.
Take height for example - hunter-gatherers ware about 1.8 1.9 tall on average.
Only recently have humans started achieve this height again.
Lets not forget that for thousands of years 90% of people ware peasants.
There are very interesting articles on wikipedia about it, I encourage everyone to read them.
>Take height for example - hunter-gatherers ware about 1.8 1.9 tall on average.
You're talking about sparse groups of Europeans here that were neither hunters or gatherers as they lived off of livestock mostly. Most hunter gatherers were and are the height of farmers.
>peasantry was literally turning humans into sub-humans.
You can probably swap out "peasant" for whatever general term can be used for uneducated retards in any given place. That's more of what he means, that 90% of people are like that, not that peasantry caused it on its own.
>for thousands of years 90% of people ware peasants.
The term "peasant" itself is fairly specific, referring to a type of poor farmer or layperson with limited land ownership. The modern equivalent is anyone who rents or leases their home or other property rather than owning it, the entire feudal system was essentially a pyramid of landlords leasing their land to other landlords. The issue was that for most of human history, we couldn't bother to be uplifting and teaching most people these things because we needed upwards of 90% of the population farming so we can all have food to eat. In itself, feudalism wasn't to blame here. We know so objectively given that a feudal government still existed in Europe until 2008, not as a technicality but in full. Look up the island of Sark, it modernized along with everyone else and wasn't some godawful place to live. Had a couple weird laws, mainly due to being an island, but it wasn't terrible to live there under feudalism. In fact, a lot of the island preferred to live that way rather than establish a parliament, they could just voice concerns to the Seigneur (or Dame) and he (or she) would consider the best course of action. The main reason they even have a parliament is because of some billionaires meddling with the place in 2008 trying to establish a monopoly over the island, but they failed to achieve the latter goal.
Faudalism in the 2000s?
Cern has been fucking with the timeline, again.
CERN denies any meddling with the timeline and wishes to remind people that the Earth has always had only one moon.
They're part of the UK, very tiny island (picrel, look how small). They became an English holding after William the Conqueror took over Normandy. France regained Normandy but never really retook any of those small channel islands. This is why the ruling family of the island uses the French term for lord "Seigneur", sort of a unique cultural blend. They're kinda neat, they were the only part of the UK that was actually occupied by the Nazis during WW2. The Dame of Sark at the time resisted them mainly with excessive passive-aggressiveness and encouraging her subjects to do the same, such as requesting German chaperones for after-curfew fishing trips only to not show up and leaving the sentries to get rained on all night. The Germans eventually considered it of little strategic value and recalled the garrison to be moved to more important theaters on the western front.
They're still partly ruled by the Seigneur and his family, but they just have an elected parliament now. The heir to the island is somewhat active on social media (hell, I ran into him in a Youtube comment section on a video about Sark, where he was thanking the creator for shedding light on his little corner of the world), seems to be a good young man by all means.
Most of the reason they go unheard of is because not much tends to happen there that would make headlines. Even the thing with the concern trolling billionaires never made it to the UN, the Seigneur called a vote voluntarily to see what his subjects wanted to do. I think only like 56% of them even voted for democracy anyways, it was fairly close. The plan of these billionaires was to cheat the democratic systems of Sark and bribe representatives to vote for their interests or fund the campaigns of corrupt representatives. However, because they'd been making life on Sark difficult, everyone there hated them and voted instead to curb their activities.
Berlin does have camels.
>There is a house in the woods
>The house has four walls
>Each wall faces north
>A bear approaches the house
What color is the bear now?
no bears in the Antarctic smartass
rare informational PrepHole post
I'm not going to do your job for you Shoigu. Don't come crying to me for help with your mogilisations.
"Early" humans ware 1000 times more resourceful, ingenuitive, inventice, endurable and tenacious than we are today. Because they fucking had to, those who didn't just died.
I'm talking about whites, off course.
There's nothing to assume. Give me 10.000 men like that and I will rule the world. Fuck, give me a 1000 and it will be enough.
I encourage everyone to read old books and "not yet banned" scientific materials.
Isn't that basically what Africans are? Zimbabweans had the overall highest tech military in the 2nd Congo War, they didn't exactly defeat Rwanda.
>phsyically and intellectually equal to the modern man
africa does not
You've got to give them some credit, for once they're actually trying to teach a mobik a useful skill, rather than just raping and beating him.
They're doing it very patiently as well. A bit too patiently. Now I'm wondering if it's fake, no Russian could be that patient.
You could train them at least as well as Africans
>higher muscle and bone density
>larger cranial volume
>memorization and spatial navigation ability savant levels by comparison
They would be more useful than your average schlub today, just embed them with SOF and see what happens, should be ideal physical specimens bare minimum.
Can you teach Russians honesty?
its interesting that nobody has mentioned this but ancient humans wouldnt speak any known language and even PIE scholars would probably struggle to speak to them
that being said, if you forced yourself through that barrier then you could probably train ww1 or ww2 rifle units, but it would take significantly longer because you have to teach them so much relevant information on the world to be a significant factor
that being said, even 7 year old africans can pull the trigger of an ak and sometimes thats all you need
>Assuming the following
>3. Language barrier is not an issue
Noone brought it up because we all know how to read.
its true im fucking retarded, im bad at tehreoticals
GRUG DON'T LIKE BOOM STICK, GRUG EARS EYES HURT, GRUG WANT HUNTING DEER AND HUMP HUMP WOMEN.
>not have rocksonic boost gliding club
>not have assault rock-15 that shoot 30 small rock fast
you get banan stole in rockmut
I'd argue that as of the late Neolithic and Chalcolithic they already had some small unit tactics down. At that time the best weapon was the bow due to it's long range, as they had yet to develop armor that was of any use in stopping an arrow (especially because these arrows were tipped with copper too). Because of this, the combat of this age was not men with clubs and spears going at it. Instead, it was mainly archers shooting at one another from a distance. It could be assumed that they probably had the mind to be mobile and take cover where they could, perhaps use stealth and surprise to their advantage when possible. They did keep some copper blades on their person, mainly knives, long daggers (copper alone not strong enough for swords), and axes, but most of these were either tools for bushcraft or backup weaponry. The long daggers in particular may have seen some combat use up close, given that they had the mind to decorate these tools with precious metals and stones. They'd found some that were inlaid with silver and gold for example, so these were definitely personal items and status symbols and not just tools to abuse the fuck out of until they break. In any case, bows were the supreme tool of warfare in this age due to their long striking distance.
The "Ice Man" in your pic, dubbed Otzi, was likely such a warrior. He was found with the blood of other men on some of his arrows and another, separate man's blood on his shoulder (but no blood on his bladed weapons IIRC). He was shot a few times in the back, which killed him. Given that, it's likely he was involved in some ancient tribal skirmish up there. He shot a few guys, retrieved his arrows, and was probably trying to carry one of his wounded tribesmen back on his shoulder during a retreat when he was shot and killed. One of his other tribemates must have picked up the man he was carrying, having to leave Otzi's body behind to save the still-living man. We are not much different than them.
Otzi was a fucking badass.
Dude bled out high enough up a mountain to be preserved for over 5 millennia. Died gripping a dagger in his fist. His tattoos look like they're part acupuncture, part medical records. Impressive variety and weight of kit carried. Varied diet suggesting prepared combat rations. And no 45 year old man goes to war without a posse of 20 year old retards to lead.
That's before the bronze age. Which basically terraformed large chunks of the earth and (if stories can be believed) had siege warfare on ridiculous scales.
There's no doubt that our low tech ancestors were team players who regularly fucked each other up. What more do you need?
I'd argue a lot of tribal warfare saw men being a lot closer together and working together fairly seamlessly, not only did you 100% personally grow up with everyone in your tribe but you're likely all some degree of cousins. Humans will fight tooth and nail to protect their family from danger and you'll probably communicate with them far more efficiently than someone you don't really know. Like they could give you a look and you might know exactly what they're thinking.
Otzi could have been carrying one of his wounded nephews to safety when the other tribe put a few arrowheads in poor uncle Otzi's back. Pretty much every tribal dispute was also a family dispute, given the related nature of a tribe.
There were likely less power struggles as tribal leadership usually passed to the eldest and wisest members, and it wasn't always just primogeniture as a monarchy is. To list a closer example, Powhatan's tribe had a peculiar line of succession winding it's way through all his brothers and sisters before finally passing down to the next generation. If you weren't the Chief when you were old, you were probably advising him. Or you were the shaman or something warding away the evil spirits from your people and leading them in worship and guidance.
The downside to some of this is that every war is also essentially race war and you can't simply remove your uniform if shit goes downhill, and you'd probably be more fucked up watching your relative's being shot full of holes than seeing it happen to a guy you just went to boot camp with for a few weeks. But assuming you still have a tribe, obviously every loss is felt and everyone knows how you feel and empathizes with you.
Not exactly saying we should return to banging rocks together, but I think we really lost something without our own tribes. It's something we're psychologically geared towards.
Yes, look up Proto Indo European for an example.
did early humans even have a language
>Assuming the following -
>1.they are physically and intellectually equal to a modern human, just happened to be born a long time ago.
>2.they were born and raised until the age of 20 in their original time, they have been transported to modern day through miraculous circumstances. (idk time travel or frozen in ice or some shit)
>3.Language barrier is not an issue
>How would you do it?
You already answered your own question lmao.
You're asking whether anatomically modern humans could be trained to fight in modern war, when anatomically modern humans in present-day can be trained to fight in modern war. Humans are adaptable as fuck by nature, and if language isn't a barrier, all that would be left would be to seperate intellectual and physical wheat from the chaff, and work from there, just like a modern military. Whatever they knew or learned in their 20 years as pre-historic humans is utterly irrelevant as long as you have the capacities necessary to train them in the first place.
They don't need to know the finer workings of their equipment, only how to bring their effects to bear and to do so as a team (modern humans definitely didn't lack the ability for small-unit-actions on raiding and hunting parties).
tl;dr: yeah, anatomically modern humans are very much so trainable for modern warfare.