Feral Existance and Fighting Abilties - Connected?

[Specster]

Does anyone see a connection between soldiers living a feral existence - with little food and next to no shelter, making them, eventually, not weaker but stronger. I think the way Jackson treated his men - forced marches, low rations, little sleep, less shelter, may have turned these men into more lethal machines.

I was once part of the MMA culture and, I saw, that the people who came from areas where they still had 1 foot in the jungle, were some of the toughest SOBs around...in spite of having, for much of their lives, sub standard food, training and shelter.

Do people see this applying, espcially to the South, right up 2 the end?

 

[Drew]

There's a guy and I can't remember his name (arghhh...) who demonstrated through observation in the animal and insect Kingdoms, that creatures attacked close to their nests will fight far more savagely than the usurpers - and win.

Now, a group of them with a crackerjack for a general is probably going to do just as good defending the nest. Interested in what others may think.

 

[ole]

Robert Ardrey. The Territorial Imperative.

 

[Drew]

Robert Ardrey. The Territorial Imperative.

Bang. Thank you.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Does anyone see a connection between soldiers living a feral existence - with little food and next to no shelter, making them, eventually, not weaker but stronger. I think the way Jackson treated his men - forced marches, low rations, little sleep, less shelter, may have turned these men into more lethal machines.

He also generated excessive straggling/desertion and mutiny.

Were his men more lethal under his command?

 

[ole]

Bang. Thank you.

In that work, he would mention howler monkeys which bear much similarity with this board. The different groups would spend their day finding food and scratching and going about their business. At a certain hour, they'd gather and scream at each other. Then they'd return to what they were doing before.

Sound familiar?

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

In that work, he would mention howler monkeys which bear much similarity with this board. The different groups would spend their day finding food and scratching and going about their business. At a certain hour, they'd gather and scream at each other. Then they'd return to what they were doing before.

Sound familiar?

 

[Elennsar]

There's a line between hardening your men and simply pushing them too hard, and the straggling at the end of the Valley Campaign suggests Jackson wasn't very clear on where that line was.

 

[Nathanb1]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[Drew]

In that work, he would mention howler monkeys which bear much similarity with this board. The different groups would spend their day finding food and scratching and going about their business. At a certain hour, they'd gather and scream at each other. Then they'd return to what they were doing before.

Sound familiar?

Bang again. Yes, thank you.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Good analogy

 

[ole]

Actually, Nate, Necessity is a Mother.

 

[major bill]

No, a lack of food makes humans weaker not stronger.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Jackson pushed his men to and beyond their physical limits. In the process, his men learned they could accomplish much more than they thought they could - an invaluable lesson on the march and in battle. But the many hardships only became comprehensible and tolerable to the men if victories resulted - which Jackson nearly always delivered. So the men became hardened physically and mentally, and consequently they won a few battles merely because they refused to believe that they could be beaten. The combination of mental and physical prowess were themselves force multipliers, and it all traced back to their commander's indomitable will and sound judgment. Men in the ranks (along with subordinate officers) never knew where Jackson was taking them or why, but they learned to trust him completely, because they were confident the outcome would justify the pain and discomfort they had to endure along the way. Few commanders in history have attained similar synergies - Alexander the Great, the young Napoleon and Julius Caesar are among the great captains in that constellation, but I think Jackson was too, in his Valley campaign of 1862.

 

[leftyhunter]

Does anyone see a connection between soldiers living a feral existence - with little food and next to no shelter, making them, eventually, not weaker but stronger. I think the way Jackson treated his men - forced marches, low rations, little sleep, less shelter, may have turned these men into more lethal machines.

I was once part of the MMA culture and, I saw, that the people who came from areas where they still had 1 foot in the jungle, were some of the toughest SOBs around...in spite of having, for much of their lives, sub standard food, training and shelter.

Do people see this applying, espcially to the South, right up 2 the end?

Was the average CSA soldier poorer then the average Union soldier? Many Union soldiers where poor immigrants and poor Southerners black and white. Many Union soldiers where the sons of humble farmers or from urban slums. Therefore how do we develop a matrix to measure poor vs poor?
Leftyhunter

 

[Rebel from Finland]

I know there has been a study that shows that those who have suffered hunger as young adults, supposedly live longer. Couldn't find it though.

 

[hanna260]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Actually, Nate, Necessity is a Mother.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

I don't know. I think maybe men can only take pride in fighting under those conditions for so long before they're no longer effective. They'd done it I guess through sheer force of will and pride and Jackson's leadership but there was no ' attaboy' anywhere? I'm not saying it was effective in any Northern troops, either, this ' thing ' where Civil War generals tended to view troops like great tools to use here and here, without thought given to the fact that these were irreplaceable men has always given me the willies. Lee's assault at Gettysburg Day 3 is the best example, use a massive amount of men, the idea being well heck, some of them will be bound to make it.

I understand that's ' just war' but don't men fight better under generals they feel at least regard their lives as dearly bought?

 

[Alex Scotland]

Great point to make. You can't deny Jackson got the very best out off his men during the valley campaign. I think his men were extremely motivated to push the northern troops out of Virginia as well showing the north that they would be foolish to stay in Virginia too long. I think back in those days most of the population (north & south), at one time or another would have known what it was like to go without food for a while so I don't see it being an over-riding factor in southern successes.

 

[brass napoleon]

I don't know. I think maybe men can only take pride in fighting under those conditions for so long before they're no longer effective. They'd done it I guess through sheer force of will and pride and Jackson's leadership but there was no ' attaboy' anywhere? I'm not saying it was effective in any Northern troops, either, this ' thing ' where Civil War generals tended to view troops like great tools to use here and here, without thought given to the fact that these were irreplaceable men has always given me the willies. Lee's assault at Gettysburg Day 3 is the best example, use a massive amount of men, the idea being well heck, some of them will be bound to make it.

I understand that's ' just war' but don't men fight better under generals they feel at least regard their lives as dearly bought?

Well, maybe, if those generals would actually fight. (I'm looking at you, McClellan and Joe Johnston!)