Why were child soldiers used? Physically, children are completely

Desperation and indoctrination

>>486052
cannon fodder

Why are woman soldiers used?

>>486077
these days because feminism, before that, they weren't used

>>486052
Can't leave that spare manpower around.

>>486052
drugged up child soldiers are the embodiment of cruelty

stamp out all reason and humanity while they are young

>>486052
Kids can still carry supplies, help setup camp, and play the drums.

>>486077
muh emancipation

But seriously, women fighting in wars alongside men has been a long tradition in some cultures

I think many people were hesitant to shoot children, which is kinda useful in combat

Kids don't feel guilty about killing people.

>>486052
Still are useful to make your enemy waste his ammo

>>486052
In history/antiquity?

see
>>486088


In modern times?

Because literally anyone can pull the trigger of a gun and kill another human being. Africa is enough of a shithole that Warlords look to build up their armies in any way possible, and typically shitty/cheap guns are easier to acquire than healthy adult males.

>>486082
People forget just how shitty the front lines are. Never seen a crowd who actually wants to fight on then so badly that they would change laws to make it happen.

File: 2sWBunV.jpg (240KB, 1171x783px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1171x783px

>>486052
In the Iran-Iraq war they were used to clear mine fields

>>486058
Basically this

>>486109
>They chant ‘Allahu Akbar’ and they keep coming, and we keep shooting, sweeping our machine guns around like sickles. My men are eighteen, nineteen, just a few years older than these kids. I’ve seen them crying, and at times the officers have had to kick them back to their guns

>>486241
>In the Iran-Iraq war they were used to clear mine fields

Is there any actual proof of this or is this just Iraqi/Saudi propaganda

>>486241
>>486258
It's disputed that child soldiers were used to clear minefields but there are multiple accounts of them being used to zurg rush Iraqi positions.

>>486052
Children are normally used when you get desperate for men.

>>486052

More bodies, they're expendable. Of course back in them day theyd typically be drummers.

Easy to indoctrinate, decent investment.

>>486137
>
Because literally anyone can pull the trigger of a gun and kill another human being. Africa is enough of a shithole that Warlords look to build up their armies in any way possible, and typically shitty/cheap guns are easier to acquire than healthy adult males.
There's another factor in the Child Soldier phenomenon in Africa.

In Africa, armies are shifting sands. They are very likely to turn their guns on you if you piss of their tribe/faction/family etc.

Child soldiers bypass that. You take a kid at the age of 8 or 10, kill his parents. You stick him under the watch of a soldier, ideally another Kadongo.

While they do fire guns, they're rarely used up close for that. A lot of African fighting (and fighting in general) is done at a 'fire in the direction of the sound' level.

The enemy is roughly in that direction, and you have no visual contact. Fire AK's in that direction until they retreat.

Remember African armies are frequently 'for profit' at one level or another. They are quite literally fighting for themselves. It is rare that they'll take on a superior force. So if you get enough AKs firing, even erratically, you can convince the enemy 'fuck this, I just signed up so I could get a civil service job later' and get them to back off.

Meanwhile, the youngest Kadonga's are actually employed a lot like they were in classical warfare. Remember African armies are also absolute shit at support services. Can you imagine what a Congolese Canteen looks like? You're on your own for basically everything.

So the children do all the shit that soldiers shouldn't have to worry about. They sew patches in your uniform, they cook your eggs in the morning, they run and get you stuff, etc.

Meanwhile, having a Kadonga like this is one of the few perks of being a soldier. Sure, you're still a poor african making $2 a day, but that's made a lot easier when you got 2 or 3 servants looking after you, and it sure as shit makes you feel a lot better about your life.

Even when poorly trained, fed, or equipped, they're basically an upgraded form of human shields, that look cuter and can shoot.

>>486348

People won't see this -- won't see how simple and practical the African style of warfare really is. The idea isn't to have big battles but to sneak up on an enemy village and kill all the civilians, take their livestock and steal their stuff. Reporters like to call this "insane," which is crap. Which would you rather do, get sent off to another continent to fight heavily-armed opponents (war Western-style) or kill the neighbors who wake you every damn morning with their stupid lawnmower (war African-style)? Especially if you can see they've got a nice DVD player in there? Personally, I'd much rather kill the neighbors and steal their stuff. And if they've got a daughter just hitting puberty -- well, that's just gravy.

So I don't see what's so crazy about these African bush armies' way of making war. Verdun, Blenheim, Gallipoli -- those were "insane." And if you still think tribal massacre is so weird, try remembering high-school PE. Now is it so hard to get? Life in an African bush army is just adolescent fantasy come to life.

>>486348
Meanwhile, the Kadonga grows up isolated from any family. Family is still very important in Africa, at a social and practical level. Nepotism plagues the continent, because for 90% of the society, it's how you survive. You depend on your father, your brother, your sons, your inlaws for food, loans, healthcare, job placement, etc.

This is why the 'ethnic' tensions in Africa are so bad. Everybody is looking out for their own clan, whatever they call it, who looks out for them.

But the Kadonga has no kin. He's socially isolated, basically a non-person. Except for your military unit.

With no family, and no experience except fighting for you, they have no way out. They can't say "fuck this, I'm going farming."

Child Soldiers are taught to treat their army/division/whatever as their family. They frequently refer to their general as 'papa.'

And Papa plays out this role. You stick around as a child soldier long enough, you become a real soldier, and eventually part of the most trusted core. You become a bodyguard, you become someone he can trust, if he survives African politics that long.

In this way, child soldiers in Africa are a lot like the Gallowglass of Ireland, or the Jannisaries, or the Mamelukes:

They exist and are valuable because they're made outsiders, and therefor aren't susceptible to the same things that test most of your soldiers loyalty.

>>486052
Most battlefield jobs do not involve fighting directly, but that still doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be able to defend themselves.

>>486374
>>486383
A war like that is just a big pyramid scheme: you take a village and distribute the loot and the women to your men. Then you round up all the surviving men and boys from that village and offer them a simple choice: join us and be reimbursed with the loot and women from the next village we take, or die right now. It's a very effective sales pitch. Repeat until the whole country is yours.

That's how the African armies work. Nobody gets this, they call it "atrocities" and claim not to "understand how human beings can behave" the way they do in Sierra Leone and Sudan, but they're stupid -- stupid or just pretending, I'm not sure which. What's so difficult to understand? It's the oldest and most sensible style of war. Compare it to, say, WW I: which kind of war would you rather be in? Gassed or blown apart in the trenches -- for what? What do you get out of it? Now compare that to war Central-Asian or African style: the village over the hill has some cute girls and some nice carpets, so you sack it, kill the men, enslave the girls, recruit the boys and move on. By the time you're on your third village you've got such a big rep that the girls are in no mood to object and the boys can't wait to be issued an AK and a license to rape and pillage the next village.

>>486137
>In modern times?
No. OP asked why they *were* used.

Nowadays a kid can use a automatic rifle or explosive about as well as anyone else I'd suppose, though they'd be unfit for formal armies.

>>486348
>>486383
>>486398

African warfare is what humans and more than likely the different species of Homo that came before humans have been doing for millions of years. Chimps do something similar if I'm not mistaken.

>>486348
>>486383
Damn, this was a surprisingly interesting read.

Thanks, African Military History Anon.

>>486464
Seems similar to the vikings, just without child soldiers

File: landlubbers wish they had my swag.jpg (53KB, 620x392px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 620x392px

In modern times they're useless and only people with no morals or sense use them (see Africa)

Back in the day they were useful to bring powder to gun crews on ships and play drums.

File: Marvelous-Misadventures-Flapjack1.jpg (23KB, 300x385px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x385px

>>486517
Adventure!

File: Midshipman_John_Windham_Dalling,_RN_(c_1800)_by_George_Henry_Harlow.jpg (167KB, 1024x1271px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x1271px

If you sign your child up as a drummer or officer's servant, when they grow up they'll have several years seniority over other cadets or midshipmen.

In the British Royal Navy, the introduction of the Royal Navy Academy was unpopular with officers because it meant they wouldn't get servants anymore.

Now, is all of this a result of males being in charge, with hormones and violence as means to an end, or is it a human problem, inherent in both genders?

>>486574
holy shit i would DESTROY his boipussy, you just know horny sailors took turns on him during long sea voyages

>>486097
Name a few

File: 1437504627743.png (425KB, 486x495px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 486x495px

You mean why *are* they used? Simple, because an 11 year old can put a bullet in your skull the same way a 24 year old can.

>>486241
>>486258
>>486292
I saw a documentary where this was mentioned and I think they were teenagers instilled with religious fervor

>>486620
Religion makes you dumb.

>>486593
Soviet Russia mostly, and during WW1 there was a women unit

>>486085
This. Swordfighting would have been a different story but they can fire a gun, no problem.

>>486077
They were, in times of desperation.
>women defending villages while men were off on campaign in Feudal Japan
>Female soldiers fighting in Stalingrad
But no, "muh Viking warrior princess" Shitstory channel narrative is all nonsense.

>>486052
Actually, if you ask a general what his idea of the ideal soldier would be if you could grow them in the lab, it would be someone short and sturdy who can carry a lot of weight and stay out of sight.

>>486374
>>486398
You literally copy pasted this from a Gary Brecher/John Dolan article. Good job.

>>486383
>>486348
This is really illuminating, thanks.

Really puts into perspective some of the stuff near the end of Beasts of No Nation

>>486052
I don't think actual children were used for combat, especially not before the invention of firearms. Now, twelve years and up, yeah, they may have been used in a pinch. Twelve year-olds aren't as stupid and incompetent as many people believe.

File: Der_Führer_gratuliert_im_Hof_der_Reichskanzlei_Ende_März_1945_dem_12jährigen_Hitlerjungen_Alfred_Czech_links_neben_Alfred_ist_Wilhelm_Hübner_einer_der_Helden_von_Lauban.jpg (239KB, 1600x1140px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1600x1140px

>>486835
>I don't think actual children were used for combat

>>486907
>>486835
Children have always been a staple component of warfare. They only stopped appearing in Western armies fairly recently.

>>486682
Not him, but thats hardly a "long tradition"

>>486937
afaik Schytians and Sarmatians were renowned for their female warriors, it is quite possible that the Greek myth of Amazons was inspired by them

>>486052
Apart from sex?

Apprenticeship. Bugling. Drumming. Running. Arms and Armouring (Squires). Slinging.

>>486955
These are steppe people.
Mongols are a steppe people and women were expected to known how to ride and shot a bow.
They often defended camp when the men were gone. The srouces for that are more modern so it's not a huge leap in logic to assume that females on the steppe were tough.

I think a steppe woman is probably tougher than a settled woman.

>>486500
This. And a lot of human societies throughout the world for a long time.

File: 1446762644259.jpg (103KB, 400x417px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 400x417px

>>486589