Replies

Comment on Grossman from an online forum:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=09f752eac59d906ff5fc67f480dd6ac1&t=118514&page=2

Wow, this was the right place to ask the question. I remembered my professor, who was absolutely brilliant, told us Marshall had been discredited. Unfortunately, my professor passed away at age 46. My initial interest was inspired by Ltc.David Grossman’s book On Killing, he states that what Marshall demonstrated was true and was true for all wars including the Civil War (15% of the men doing all the shooting and killing). He says it was true for combat pilots in WW II as well. He says this did not change until Vietnam. He suggests this was also true in the ancient world as well. Now I am not well versed on military history but the notion of only 15% of Roman soldiers doing the killing and fighting, remember, Grossman says this is true then as well, seems a bit of a stretch. But I also recognize I am far from an authority and could be wrong. I will check those sources out and your discussions are greatly appreciated.

Again, I salute you all for your extensive knowledge. This has been a big help for me. Not to nitpick, but in Grossman’s introduction he suggested a reliance in his approach to Freud and then even mentioned Alfred Kinsey both of whom to a greater or lesser degree, have been discredited. He relied a great deal on Freud throughout the book. In addition he aruges that we have been a sexually repressed society which leads to the problems associated and described in his book. I thought his argument when have been tighter if he had left out Freud, Kinsely, and discussions on sexual repression (something I don’t think any era has successfully suppressed). And, of course, he relies heavily on Marshall which, if discredited, all of the above would call into question his work. As an aside, a gun-rights activist gave me the book because Grossman teaches some sort of self defense seminar, but, in the conclusions to Grossman’s book, he makes a pitch for what could be described as gun-control through disarmament. I thought that was strange unless I misread it.

Most of the Roman fighting was not made by individual fighters on their own, was it? indivudals were mostly integrated into mechanisms.

This stats Grossman is referring here is about riflemen, acting on their own.

Grossman clearly says, that a shooting machine operated by more than 1 individual WILL AIM FOR THE KILL AND PULL THE TRIGGER.

Not the individual on his own, the lone rifleman.

Romans used a phalanx ~ they formed a square ~ guys on the perimeter held shields up; guys behind them poked at the enemy outside with spears. (recognize there are infinite variations on this theme, each with its special name ~ e.g. testudo)

Obviously even the Romans suffered casualties, and the phalanx formation had limits. When it broke down everybody was on the front, and they did sword chopping to who tied it then!

I don't think only 15% of the guys in a phalanx were burdened with all the combat!