Soldiering then and now: which was worse?

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi all,

Whilst we all wait for the new demo and eventually the full game, I thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion.

Soldiering then and now: which was worse?

By "which was worse", I mean which was the more dangerous and unpleasant an experience for a typical soldier of the line from Europe when comparing a soldier of, say 1805-1815 to one of today.

Things to bear in mind:

1) Most European soldiers of today are volunteers whereas many then will have been conscripts.

2) One writer I have read suggests that in some ways soldiers then looked forward to a battle as it gave the opportunity to loot. However, I've read accounts of soldiers today in Afghanistan who equally look forward to some action as it breaks the monotony and boredom typical of life on a base or outpost.

3) Soldiers today are often in firefights many times in their tour of duty, whereas soldiers then might only see one big battle in a campaign.

4) Disease is not such a killer as it was then.

5) Due to advances in medicine, being injured then is likely to have been far more unpleasant an experience than now.

It's a tough question but I think on balance it was probably worse then than now. Does anyone disagree?

[ess1]

I certainly do not, having served 24 years in the British Army, leaving in 1974.
The medical services during my time were superb.   I had the Queen's Surgeon carry out an operation on my back followed by a period at Headley Court.

Shudder to think what would have happened to me in "those days"

[Gaston45]

Imagine, you have been hit in the arm with a musket ball.

You are carried eventualy to a hospital the day after the battle, you had spent the night lying among the dead and wounded upon the battle field and now you are finaly at the hospital.
The doctor ( with a bloody leather apron ) points to the orderly and says,"bring that one"'.

Remember disiplin was alittle different as well... floggings etc.

Then I think was worse.

[D3m0]

4) Disease is not such a killer as it was then.

I don't think that diseases are a significant problem for todays military, while they were the MAIN killer in pretty much every war before the ~20th century.

Apart from gigantic medical advance we also have completely different doctrines here. Todays military is heavily focused on preventing as much casualties as possibly not only for reasons of charity but because no government/party wants to be associated with a unpopular conflict at the home front.
Todays soldiers are also much more highly trained and every soldier is also a investment which has to be preserved.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_cost_of_training_a_soldier_in_the_military

Okay, so expand the training scenario a level and say that training a basic infantry soldier takes only a year (don't laugh too hard, its a simple analysis), that's a minimum of $40,000. Say that soldier gets shipped over to a combat region, now earns combat pay, serves only one year, comes back to the US and gets out (which is unlikely, as the minimum service commitments are a bit higher then that). That tacks $225/month on to their pay, ramp up all eight of the previously mentioned support staffers, and training, equipping, and fielding 1 each, US-issue Army grunt is going to run you over $250k. Add in healthcare benefits, tax breaks, life-insurance and disability insurance, wear-and-tear of equipment, ammunition, moral and transportation costs and a single soldier training and serving in the most basic capacity costs $400,000+.

[Stoppelhopser]

Don't disagree.

A few thoughts come to my mind:

Discipline was much harder back then. No Hollywood-like discussions between say privates and captains.

Feeding an army is always a problem but I think it got better in the 20th century than before (preserved food etc).

Medical advance was already mentioned. Scharnhorst died of an infection of a bajonet wound...

You were in very close physical contact to the enemy. Imagine standing upright with your musket in roundshot fire, sometimes for very long. Or trading musket salvoes with other dudes 50m from you. Always the thought"will I make it for another second, how will I be maimed or killed?".
My grandfather served on the eastern front in ww2 and always told it was very comforting to feel mother earth and to dig as deep as you could even though a full hit could still occur any time. It was not "unmanly" to hit the ground any more.

One thing that was maybe better was the killing zone was not too deep. Run a kilometer from the enemy and he can hardly reach you. Sit at your tent at night with a cosy fire, not a problem if not in the front line. Some of the 18th century armies even went to winter quarters and were doing more manoevering than fighting because they were very costly to drill and you don't want to ruin your precious army.  No fighter bombers when marching, no IR sights, no poison gas as in ww1, no tanks no aircraft, no mines, no missiles.

I'm glad I served in the forces in the 1980s, not in the 1780s.

[Cpl Steiner]

Thanks for your replies so far.

Whilst I agree warfare then compared to now was pretty harsh on the average soldier, I don't think the gap is as big as some paint. One thing to bear in mind is the frequency of firefights. In Napoleonic times you could go for months without ever firing a shot in anger or receiving any sort of fire yourself. Even if there was a big battle at the end of the campaign you might miss it, as you might be part of a small detachment guarding a supply depot several miles from the battlefield or part of a flanking force which arrives too late to take part in the battle.

Compare that with British soldiers in Afghanistan who are almost all involved in a firefight of some sort on an almost routine basis. I think some units of the British army have suffered casualty rates in the 20 or 30 % region over the course of a 6 month tour.

As for modern soldiers not so fortunate to be part of a Western army, they will obviously fair much worse. I wouldn't have liked to have been in the Iraqi army in 1991 or 2003!

[nix]

John Kegan in his book 'The face of Battle' compares the experience of fighting at Agincourt, at Waterloo and on The Somme. He comes down on the side of the experience of modern battle as being more alienating and stressful as the weapons become more accurate over long ranges and the combatants no longer see each other or where death is comming from and as the actions grow in scale from a few thousand combatants to hundreds of thousands engaged in a battle which may last months rather than hours. This is battle, as opposed to warfare in general; ie all the ancillery stuff associated with campaigning, the food, the disease, the battlefield medecine, transport etc all of which have improved immesurably.

(see the book 'Men of Steel' surgery in the napoleonic wars or Charles Bell's portraits of the wounds sustained at Waterloo and their treatment for the medical aspect which is often neglected in campaign histories of this period!


Men of Steel: Surgery in the Napoleonic Wars by Michael Crumplin

A Surgical Artist at War: The Paintings and Sketches of Sir Charles Bell 1809-1815 - Paperback (Jun 2005) by M K H Crumplin and P Starling

Larrey:Surgeon to Napoleon's Imperial Guard. Robert G Richardson)

[antiochus]

 Well I remember reading in one Waterloo book how the peasants from the area were cutting out the teeth of the " dead " men. From the account not all had passed on as of then. Hands down in any war up until now it was worse. The much smaller amounts of casualties in recent wars make it much easier for the medical staff to deal with. WW1 has always seemed to me the worst of the worst. Still pre-antibiotics and rudimentary care and horrible conditions while just sitting waiting to die. As someone stated at least pre 20th century you could at least walk far enough away from the battle to avoid dying on your way to the farmhouse " hospital " or more appropriately abbatoir.