> Greg Stafford wrote:
> > I recommend that everyone read Keegan's book on the History of
> Warfare to see the differences between the way normal people act and
> think in battle versus the ones that are going to stand and fight
> until they die.
Though Keegan's use of cultural rather than rational state actors as the prime motivators to war, as embodied by 4th gen asymetric concepts, is a pretty blatant effort to discredit Clausewitzean theory it proves that he doesn't really understand Clausewitz in the first place. There are some old articles on this in Military Reveue and Parameters online. The Clausewitz homepage is also a good site to check on this kind of thing.
As a work that focuses on historical examples it, A History of Warfare, is good.
> On the topic of Humakti I've always been recommended (I think
> Benedict Adamson has read it - he might comment) On Killing by Dave
> Grossman
Yes this is a decent book. Grossman has a strong religious right political agenda however, so beware of his writing at some levels. Don't discount, just be careful.
> which explores what it takes to teach someone to kill with
> desensitivity training (research suggests that most people, even in
> combat, find it difficult to kill an enemy they can see. Only about
> 15% will shoot at the target at close range and its even more
> difficult in Glorantha where killing means you need to get up real
> close and personal) and the ramifications to society of teaching
> someone to kill.
This is overstated I think. A lot of this came from "Men Against Fire" by Marshall, which was the seminal post war work on this kind of thing. However, Marshal has been recently discredited due to his appaling research methods (ie he didn't do any, he mostly made up his famous and much quoted figures). Du Picqs "Battle Studies" is a good source for the actions of men in combat. There are actually many battles in history where extensive casualties have been inflicted in close quarters by troops, many of whom had little wartime experience.
I think in some senses it is wishful thinking to hope that human beings are somehow hardwired not to kill each other and there is evidence to support this view and to dismiss it if you look in the right place for each.
> Also look at the killer's in Icelandic Saga such as Gunnar. They are
> both attractive and repellent at the same time. Odinic berserkers
> with a strong sense of Germainc wyrd and even comitatus spring to
> mind for me when I contemplate Humakti. But sometimes I just think of
> player-character who kills without a concept of the price.
Or if you value life so little, including your own, it is difficult to emphathise with those you would kill. What is frightening about an berserker is that they are willing to fight on their own, without help and without a chance of victory. People like that are truly frightening because their rational judgements are based on a different set of concepts to the average person. Humakti are like that I think and this is why people are afraid of them.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail