Were soldiers in the front ranks 100% guaranteed to die? How the fuck did they not freak out?

>Paid twice for first line service
>Warrior spirit

Bullets werent accurate and battles were short.
You seem to have warfare in that era all wrong, two volleys and a charge would Generally carry the day.

>In the German mercenary armies of the Landsknechts, these troops were called the "Verlorene Haufen", which has the same meaning as the Dutch term, the word Haufen itself being a general term for a loosely organised group of men. The men of the "Verlorene Haufen" carried long double-handed swords, with which they had to hew their way through the massive pike formations opposing them. They also had to withstand the first wave of attacks when defending a breastwork. Members of the "Verlorene Haufen" earned double pay, thus giving them the name of "Doppelsöldner" ('Double-wagers'), but since there were not enough volunteers to serve in the "Verlorene Haufen", criminals that had been sentenced to death were taken into the ranks as well. As a field sign, the "Verlorene Haufen" carried a red "Blutfahne" ('Blood Banner').

>By extension, the term forlorn hope became used for any body of troops placed in a hazardous position, e.g., an exposed outpost, or the defenders of an outwork in advance of the main defensive position.[1] This usage was especially common in accounts of the English Civil War, as well as in the British Army in the Peninsular War of 1808–1814, and in the days of muzzle-loading muskets, the term was most frequently used to refer to the first wave of soldiers attacking a breach in defences during a siege.

>While it was likely that most members of the forlorn hope would be killed or wounded the intention was that some would survive long enough to seize a foothold that could be reinforced, or at least that a second wave with better prospects could be sent in while the defenders were reloading or engaged in mopping up the remnants of the first wave.[1] That said such soldiers were rarely suicidal or foolhardy: British troops of the forlorn hope at the 1812 Siege of Badajoz carried a large bag 5–6 feet by 2 feet in diameter stuffed with hay or straw, which was thrown down into the enemy trenches to create a cushion and prevent injury as they jumped down.

they brainwashed them hard like ISIS does today

A forlorn hope may have been composed of volunteers (rather than condemned criminals or randomly-selected soldiers) and were frequently led by ambitious junior officers with hopes of personal advancement: if the volunteers survived, and performed courageously, they would be expected to benefit in the form of promotions, cash gifts and adding glory to their name (a military tradition at least as old as the Roman Republic[11]) while the commanding officer himself was virtually guaranteed both a promotion and a long-term boost to his career prospects.

In consequence, despite the grave risks involved for all concerned, there was often serious competition for the opportunity to lead such an assault and to display conspicuous valour.

The French equivalent of the forlorn hope, called Les Enfants Perdus or The Lost Children, were all guaranteed promotion to officer rank should they survive, with the effect that both enlisted men and officers joined the dangerous mission as an opportunity to raise themselves in the army.

>brainwash
These men are intimate with bravery you might only read of in legends.

RIP in piece my nigga Abu Haajar, you were too good for this world.

>forgot video and picture
youtube.com/watch?v=aM3ElTvF52I

>the 1812 Siege of Badajoz

Let's not talk about this shitshow again please

>The infuriated soldiery resembled rather a pack of hell hounds vomited up from infernal regions for the extirpation of mankind than what they were but twelve short hours previously – a well-organised, brave, disciplined and obedient British Army, and burning only with impatience for what is called glory.
lmao

>Despite this, some historians have defended the British soldiers' conduct by arguing that the aftermath could not have been avoided considering the ferociousness of the battle. Ian Fletcher argues:

>Let us not forget that hundreds of British troops were killed and maimed by the fury of the respective assaults, during which men saw their comrades and brothers slaughtered before their very eyes. Should we really condemn them for feeling some degree of bitterness, for wanting to vent their anger upon somebody? The storming of a fortress is not the same as a battle where men expect casualties to occur. But when a force was asked to storm a fortress when practicable breaches had been formed, such casualties would have been deemed unnecessary. Given the enormity of the task facing the stormers in the Peninsula, I for one begrudge them none of their feelings of anger and desire for revenge.

Literally Dindus

OP's pic is 18th century while the Landsknechte were 16th, and forlorn hopes of the era were very different to simply being in the front rank.

>you will never liberate Iberian teen girls of their hymens during the sack
I cry everytime

>Oh noes, the French have killed many of us!!!
>Should we take revenge on our French prisonners?
>Nope, let's massacre the Spanish civilians we came to liberate instead

>muh money
>muh bloodlust
>muh honor
>muh afterlife
>muh people

Everything you need to make a man fight

bullets don't instantly kill people

Does people include muh pussy?

Yes they do instantly kill people.

BOOM HEADSHOT

Could be considered as "muh rape" if you attack the village full of qt's, so yeah.

Wasn't a "big deal" back then

some people are ready to die and happy for the trade [or exchange of their life] of anothers

come about from personality from socio-economic conditions that arise from state and church ideologies

in short
>#worth

>Were soldiers in the front ranks 100% guaranteed to die?
no

As someone who has an interest in late 15th/early 16th c warfare, that part about Landsknechts is totally inaccurate.

Thanks for the informative correction, cunt.

This is why I hate Hollywood.

>Were soldiers in the front ranks 100% guaranteed to die?
Nowhere near 100%. Other than the rotation some other user mentioned, there was also the entire deal about outflanking, as well as how horribly inaccurate muskets at the time were.

>How the fuck did they not freak out?
Other than not being guaranteed to die, they also got higher pay that the guys in safer positions I think. On top of that, there was also the whole honor aspect. As alien as it might appear to us, in our wealth and complacancy, for most of history men (not women, men) valued honor over their own lives. They truly, unironically, believed it was better to die in your feet than to live on your knees. The most radical (non-violent) example of this are early Christian martyrs, who sometimes rejoiced when they were thrown to the lions because it allowed them to prove their devotion.

elaborate