Why was corporal punishment in militaries banned? Is corporal

nowadays soldiers are citizens, in older times they were considered scum

>>2092700

Do citizens have stronger constitutions than scum such that whipping them has no effect?

>>2092691
It lowers morale, encourages desertion and create mistrust with your higher ups; Today's military doctrine hinges on good cooperation not only between comrades but with your higher ups.

Besides Corporal punishment does not work on children either.

Napoleon slaughtered his enemies because his troops had excellent morale and discipline. He achieved this by honoring them, awarding them, and rewarding them for jobs well done. Beating the idiots in your corps does not contribute to morale.

>>2092691
it doesn't endear you to your soldiers

>>2093139
>Besides Corporal punishment does not work on children either.
white people shit lmao

>>2093178
Its the prevalent consensus among the psychological and medical community that corporal punishment of children not only not works but it has a high probability of having detrimental effects on development.
Also I'm not white.

>>2093170

How'd Ceaser get away with it?

>>2093319
They didnt know any better back then, and discipline was harder to maintain

>>2093319
Caesar fought literal forest apes

>>2093319
Caesar had charisma to the point that the senate had to kill him.

>>2093238

You sound asian.

>>2093178

You sound black, although it's also probable that you are "sounding black" on purpose in order to stick up for corporal punishment as a meme about how it's fun to think of black people as the dumb people that they really are.

The hypothetical that might go in the other anon's favor is the thought experiment about all the young Quantaviouses and Tyrones who caught the switch or mom's hand on a semi-regular basis in childhood, only to grow up to still be criminals or ne'er do wells of whatever stripe. In order to test all this, one would have to define what it means for corporal punishment to "work" (change behavior right now? Not raise a shit kid long-term? etc).

OTOH whether you're trolling or not I hear the suggestion about white people being pussies, which isn't wholly unwarranted given today's culture. But there's a difference between total pussification and actually backing up the claim that corporal punishment works, whatever working means.

Germans used to do ad hoc corporal punishment on their troops, and basically give someone a kicking if they stepped out of line without making it into an official thing.
Doing it officially involved a proper legal procedure.
It wasn't like the old British way where soldiers were ordered to beat their comrades at their superior's behest after 5 minutes in a kangaroo court.

File: 91511-004-E7DA647B.jpg (134KB, 470x400px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 470x400px

>>2092691
>Why was corporal punishment in militaries banned?
Instilling fear of punishment yields great short term returns, conditioning your soldiers to do things they wouldn't normally do, like march in formation into cannon fire, hold the line against an incoming onslaught of Celtic savages, or throw themselves at machine gun nests.

But the problem is that when you subject a person perpetually to the fear of punishment, it fucks with them and they start to go crazy. In the case of soldiers it crushes their spirits and dampens morale, makes them loathe their officers and only obey out of fear of punishment, and stifles resourcefulness, initiative, and "out-of-the-box" thinking. In the modern day where lethality in a soldier is more a reflection of marksmanship and situational awareness than a desire to be straight up cruel to another human, the military would rather have soldiers who act resourcefully and show initiative.

>Why was it useful for pre-modern armies but banned in modern armies?
Because for pre-modern armies your average footman was an illiterate, superstitious, slightly inbred farmboy who ran away from his blighted, dead end life of toil and hardship to earn the glory and respect of his peers in battle, score war booty, and rape bitches. And that's on the off-chance he's not one of the ones who was rounded up by a press gang and forced to serve against his will. Either way, in order to get either of these simple hillbillies to do what you wanted, you would have needed to speak to them in a language that these ruffians and cast-aways could understand.

>>2093591
>footman was an illiterate, superstitious, slightly inbred farmboy who ran away from his blighted, dead end life of toil and hardship to earn the glory and respect of his peers in battle, score war booty, and rape bitches.
I dunno man as a person who did four years in the Muh Reens this still applies.

>>2093591
wow 1500s guy looks like 3CPO

>>2093591
If you don't think that description applies to a significant portion of modern militaries, you're in for a disappointment.

File: DSC_0479.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>2093591
>1600s
>Its always a man in a half-Armor as opposed to Cuirassier armor.

>>2093603
"You can push them out of a plane, you can march them off a cliff, you can send them off to die on some God-forsaken rock, but for some reason, you can't slap them."

>>2093658
>>2093603
trust me, I get it, anywhere you get uniforms you get rednecks, but you still can't join the modern military without a high school diploma or GED. That alone makes a giant difference in the quality of person that you get entering the service.

>>2092691
>Why was corporal punishment in militaries banned?

One word: Litigation

Also, beating your kids is no longer the norm, so such methods would be viewed as heinous rather than just standard practice.

>>2093366
>They didnt know any better back then

The ancients didn't know pain hurt?

File: 1480401499932.jpg (41KB, 1024x620px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1024x620px

>>2093178
>Advocating child abuse
This is why The West is best. Stay abusive, it keeps your kind at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

>>2093677

So why are the rednecks of today more obidient than the rednecks of before?

>>2093319
It was worth it for a chance of Gaulish booty and slaves and Caesar was a good leader.

There are plenty accounts of other mutinies in the Roman military.

>>2093319
>>2094779
Plus, the Romans regularly relied on capital punishment and the threat of capital punishment to keep order, not just corporal punishment.

>>2094465
Nigga, when you were "best," kids worked in Mineshafts and fathers beat their sons close to death.

>>2092691
Because now a days lower enlisted by and large are just as intelligent, mature, -and educated as officers.
If some boot 2 lt. tried to whip someone nowadays there'd be a fucking riot.

>>2092691

The only way to get a man to stab another man is make him fear the repercussions if he doesn't

Now that we use guns, it's much easier to get men to kill, so we don't need to beat them to get them to do so

>>2093139

Which is why today's military is so well known for staunch discipline, strong moral character, and an aversion to fraternization.

>>2095903
Western militaries, yeah

File: 1de.gif (940KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 627x502px

>>2092691

>>2093139
would you say that the threat of corporal punishment works for children? i can understand why you shouldnt hit a kid for every little thing but some things do deserve a spanking first and a talking to after

>>2094762
They have access to education, decent health care, and mentally stimulating activity like shooting guns and riding 4 wheelers. That makes for overall much more well adjusted people than ones which lead a life of deprivation and mindless toil on a diet of mostly bread and water.

>>2093139
t. stefan molyneux

>>2093549
>only to grow up to still be criminals or ne'er do wells of whatever stripe.

They'd still end up to where they are expected to be in that setting because of how poverty works and entering gangs. Also I find it funny you are using stereotypical black names while condemning him for typing like a stereotypical black guy

>>2096076
All it does is teach them that inflicting cruelty is an acceptable means of coercing behavior that they want

>>2092691
The definitions for "just" and "unjust" actions changes over time. At a certain time, it was considered just to punish those who stepped out of line in that manner. They still have punishments now, but they are different and the reasoning for making them just is different as well.

It's like the reasons for waging war has changed over time. At one point, conquest of the "barbarians/savages" was just because you were operating under "Gods will", bringing the "right faith" to the heathens. Then as religion lost prominence/people wised up, that wasn't considered a just reason anymore. Then they switched it to conquest by right of unused territory, that is, if the savages are not cultivating or using the land for production, than it is just for them to take it by force (if the savages try to defend it that is). Today, just wars are tough to define, but they typically come in the form: ___ ruler is a tyrant/dictator, the people need to be "freed", lets bring them "democracy", now they are slaves to our corporations.

>>2093123
Citizens are able to seek legal redress if you treat them badly. Just look at how NIcias handled the Sicilian campaign because of that ability.

>>2094445
It was more along the lines of "the beatings will continue until morale improves".

It had a lot to do with just how often and severely Roman legionaries mutinied or flat out revolted

>>2096106
>All it does is teach them that inflicting cruelty is an acceptable means of coercing behavior that they want

Which, give the world we live in, it is.

>>2097755
Leadership by inspiration and example are more difficult bonds to establish because they require more work from the ones at the top, but once they're established they're unshakeable and far more durable, and don't come at the cost of stifling your children/soldier's ability to think critically for themselves.

>>2092691
In terms of navies, your sailors were just as likely to be citizens of another nation as much as yours.

You had to beat them to keep them in line

File: ???.jpg (72KB, 609x368px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 609x368px

>>2093549
how can you hear them

are you an esper

>>2092691
The Hellenistic militaries did not use corporal punishment yet still fought well and hard. The army of the Ptolemies marched through a desert in record time for example.

>>2093319
Because he had to. Romans not kept afraid of their leaders would kill them. Centurions in particular lead through a mix of example, hard won respect and the ability to inspire abject terror in everyone around them.

>>2096491
This. You piss off legionaries badly enough and they're going to either ignore you, kill you, or kill you, proclaim someone they like more emperor, and try to take over.

Romans were aggressive, uppity bastards the likes of which the world has rarely seen.


On the other hand, you could calm them down by doing things they found sufficiently funny, or shaming them.

>>2100027
They did, actually. The general just had to be able to justify what he was doing if it came to a trial. Xenophon in particular had to beat more than a few of his men to keep them moving.

>>2092691
>Why was it useful for pre-modern armies
Because human sense of fairness requires degrees of punishment, and corporal punishment was just the most cost effective solution. Nowadays jailing people or docking their pay and holidays is a lot more effective, but back then it's wasn't a viable punishment for armies on the move or ships at sea.

>>2101168
>xenophon
>hellenistic

Fuck off boyfucker, I bet you believe in city states. From what I've read the rules were rather lax in the hellenistic kingdoms compared to Rome yet both had fine soldiers. One shouldn't think that the Romans harsh rules were good however. During mutinies and betrayal the centurions would often be killed or tortured due to their harsh rule. Officers in hellenistic militaries didn't really have this problem since fines or normal punishment was more common compared to the death sentence the Romans loved.

>>2101742
You also don't see Hellenic section leaders inspiring their men to the same extent, or really EVER doing anything of note. Centurions, and every facet of how they interacted with the men, were a distinctly roman approach that worked well within their culture. Romans wanted and needed a level of aggression that Hellenic forces actively avoided. Centurions were needed to bring this about.

>>2101804
Centurions also had a high mortality rate while hellenistic officers lived on to gain experience. The officer in a phalanx exists to instruct and direct the formstion compared to the retarded centurions needing to be replaced every battle due to getting killed. Hellenistic forces were far more warlike compared to the romans due to a martial culture and warrior traditions. Romans were idiots who threw legions into the meatgrinder.

>>2101924
>hellenistic forces were far more warlike compared to the romans due to a martial culture and warrior traditions.
This is genuinely the most humorous thing i've ever seen on /his/.

>>2101924
>be hellene
>run up and down, lift rocks, oil body, lust after boys
>o no it's rome
>put on greaves, helmet, cuirass
>waste 5000 lines describing putting on greaves, helmet, cuirass
>line up in phalanx with lots of hot dudes
>have dirty shitty slingers I don;t respect on sides with mediocre cavalry
>Slingers/cavalry get driven off
>Can't turn at less than 0.2 miles an hour with retarded giant spears
>Manipule charges from side, gladius through throat
>literally because some old roman guy got pissed off about roman youth being gay for our poetry
>seriously, we got wrecked because our faggotry pissed off the romans that much
>muh glorious hellene culture

File: 435c884e1c1d047b427805e6e1cb85a7.jpg (73KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x450px

>>2101995
I think you're exaggerating the good point he is making. Alexander conquered a generous portion of the known world using exactly the sort of drill that he's describing, hammering vastly larger Persian forces time and time again, often times the only reason he won a battle was because of how competent his junior officers were, able to act on their own initiative when separated from their leader.

These Greeks were hardened professionals fighting Romans when they were at their peak, grizzled veterans schooled hard in warfare fighting Hannibal. The Greeks fatal downfall was not that their soldiers were incompetent, but the fact that their civic structure was jealous with its citizenship and thus had a very difficult time replacing battlefield losses, while Rome was a place where any scalawag or outlaw could escape his debts and start a new life, and the main strength of the legion was being able to bounce back time and time again even after suffering appalling losses.

>>2102042
>Rome was a place where any scalawag or outlaw could escape his debts and start a new life
The Marian reforms didn't happen until decades after Magnesia. The Romans did have more manpower yes, but their manipular formation was also better in non-perfect terrain compared to the Greek phalanxes due to their versatility.

>>2102149
>The Marian reforms didn't happen until decades after Magnesia.
From its earliest beginnings Rome was a place where yesterday's migrants/conquered people were today's auxiliaries and tomorrow's citizens and legionaries.

The Roman army weathered stunning losses. Cannae for example was a total humiliation, getting encircled by a much smaller force. I agree that the manipular formation was superior to the phalanx in terms of flexibility, but victory was by no means assured.

>>2095735
>The only way to get a man to stab another man is make him fear the repercussions if he doesn't

untrue

>>2102187
One still had to be a landowner back then to be in the army. The difference was that the Romans had a larger population.
>Cannae for example was a total humiliation, getting encircled by a much smaller force.
Cannae was a huge gamble for Hannibal. If his cavalry didn't win in time to come back and outflank the Romans, it would have been a disastrous defeat as the Romans break through his center.
>but victory was by no means assured.
Romans had more manpower and an army that was superior for fighting in mountainous Greece. As long as the Romans don't completely fuck up, it was only a matter of time before they won.

>>2102042
>at their peak
Are you kidding? Phyruus attacked them when they hadn't even finished with the samnites, and ultimately lost.

Rome going into Macedon was near demographic collapse and the VAST majority of their veterans were dead. More importantly, veteran units were not raised as a single entity. The men were rafted the same way they were the first time, and formed into new units the same as any green recruit.

Nor does this have ANYTHING to do with the ridiculosu fucking idea that the hellenes had a "more martial culture." they didn't, and they sure as fuck weren't more warlike.

>From its earliest beginnings Rome was a place where yesterday's migrants/conquered people were today's auxiliaries and tomorrow's citizens and legionaries.

But that's FUCKING WRONG. They had to fight a massive fucking war against their own allies specifically because they wouldn't grant the vast fucking majority of Italians citizenship under any circumstances.

Auxiliaries before the social war got levied when needed, looted if they won, died if they didn't, and went home when the legion was done. That's it.

Poor bastards couldn't even join the army, and the poorish did shitty, dangerous work that brought no glory unless you took exceptional risks. Proles didn't get the name because of their glorious military contributions to Rome.

>>2092691
In the past it was okay to ba a dick, as long as you did it to those below you in standing.
this meant that fear being easier to obtain than respect was the quick way to control.
Now a days we can't be so open in being dicks. So now we can't flog you, we just give you a 5 hour gender course on your shore leave night so all the good hookers are taken by the time you get to hit the red light district.
You officer is still a dick and you know he will fuck with you if you misbehave, just that with the times the fucking has become more refined.

File: 220px-Isis_priest01_pushkin.jpg (14KB, 220x344px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x344px

>>2102222
>more martial culture
That's not what I'm implying. All I'm saying is that he makes a valid point when he says that Hellenes raised professional, competent armies without the need for Roman style drill.

>Macedon
>demographic collapse
That's exactly the point I made about Hellenic civic structure suffering from chronic population issues.

>massive fucking war against their own allies.
Yet these same allies clung tightly to Rome even while Hannibal was spanking them up and down Italy. Nobody said that the process went cleanly but you can't argue that Romanization wasn't a valid strategy for population replenishment.

Roman citizenship was used as a tool of foreign policy and control. Colonies and political allies would be granted a "minor" form of Roman citizenship, there being several graduated levels of citizenship and legal rights (such as the ius Latii, or Latin Right). The promise of improved status within the Roman "sphere of influence", and the rivalry with one's neighbours for status, kept the focus of many of Rome's neighbours and allies centered on the status quo of Roman culture, rather than trying to subvert or overthrow Rome's influence.

The granting of citizenship to allies and the conquered was a vital step in the process of Romanization. This step was one of the most effective political tools and (at that point in history) original political ideas (perhaps one of the most important reasons for the success of Rome).