Does religion make armies stronger?

[vorlon13]

Look what the US military did to Japan in WWII with "Jewish" physics.

[Dystopia]

It is inevitable, but perhaps we are using a different meaning for sacrifice - Most soldiers in war die in combat - Or let's say at least 30-50% of the population does - When you go to war, you are inevitably sacrificing yourself and probably going to die for the cause. I'm not talking about openly and explicitly sacrificing a bunch of people, but the fact going to armed conflicts increases the chances of dying a lot, and death of millions or thousands is necessary to win the war.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Would you want to meet this on the battlefield?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mDLsyn6ns

Whoollleee.. Leeeee... Fuuucckkkkk

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've seen this discussed before (not sure if it was here), and whilst entirely speculative, I thought it might be a good point of discussion.

Do you think that belief in an afterlife (the heaven and hell stuff), and a law maker god, make humans more willing to impress their god, more willing to die, thereby making them a more cohesive, dangerous force in battle? Or is it entirely circumstantial (training, stratagem, state of the other army, weather) or is it a combination of these things? 

I'm of the opinion that it's a complex issue, and likely a combination of all of these things, but I also feel that it's a bit too coincidental that the two largest religions in the world happen to be monotheistic religions, which are expansionist by nature, and play major roles in the political structure of their cultures. These religions both have heaven and hell as their main carrot and stick, and can quite easily be turned in to death cults when required. Where god the loving/merciful becomes god of the armies/the avenger, and said god encourages martyrdom and willingness to die for the faith.

Thoughts?

Morale, weapons, tactics, and doctrine make an army stronger. Faith might affect one of those factors, but it can have a negative effect too -- the Japanese fought stoutly against American forces in the Pacific due in part to their shinto reverence for ancestors and a desire to ascend into the pantehon, but at the same time, it drove suicidal attacks of little military value.

[Whateverist]

So you might say religion helps soldiers lower the value they put on their own survival.

[Minimalist]

When you go to war, you are inevitably sacrificing yourself and probably going to die for the cause.

If you speak to veterans you eventually find that they fight for their buddies.  "Causes" are for politicians and other REMFs.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's true. There isn't very much you can use as a deterrent against someone who is so willing to die for their cause.

Granting them their wish often works wonders.

"Your job is not to die for your country. You job is to make the other lousy bastard die for his country." -- George S Patton, Gen.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Iraqi army had every technological advantage needed over ISIS.  In the end, the only thing they used were good running shoes.

There is no replacement for human will, on the battlefield. I'd rather have a good man with a knife than a coward with a gun.

[Minimalist]

The Iraqi army had every technological advantage needed over ISIS.  In the end, the only thing they used were good running shoes.

There is no replacement for human will, on the battlefield. I'd rather have a good man with a knife than a coward with a gun.

The moral is to the physical is as three to one.

Napoleon I

[Thumpalumpacus]

No. It makes them weaker. Religious soldiers don't think, they just do things. Religious soldiers will die to impress a non-existing creature thus weakening the strength of the entire army.

This is precisely why it gets stronger - They don't think and just obey, live slaves. There's no difficulty in sacrificing lives for the cause.

Soldiers don't die for gods or kings or countries. They die for their buddies on the right and the left of them.

I was not a combat soldier; I was a firefighter in the Air Force. But I would have preferred dying before the shame of letting one of my brothers down when he needed it most.

Also, blind obedience is not a great soldierly quality. One of the reasons Germans kicked so much ass in two world wars against overwhelming coalitions (albeit losing both, they did so with a kill rate that far outsripped the Allies, in both wars) was that they devolved decision-making to the lowest possible level. In other words, they didn't want preprogrammed robots, they wanted thinkers who could respond to the exigencies of the moment with the battle-plan in mind. Rommel, for one, earnt his cache in the Reichswehr by capturing a mountain with a single company, defeating a division in the process, by going totally outside plans. There are many, many other examples of how the Germans used individual initiative to defeat larger forces. The American Army trains its folks that way as well today -- a tribute to German doctrine of "the man on the spot has the best view."

Robots aren't efficient fighters; they apply one-size-fits-all tactics to situations which are inherently chaotic and mostly unpredictable.

The willingness to die for one's cause is no measure of military efficiency. Don't mistake the two.

In my opinion, any greater cause people believe in, whether it's a religion or a noble or evil ideology, can work as a motivating factor for armies. Anything can, really. If my soldiers feel horny and I tell them they can rape everyone after winning the war (and they are evil or indifferent enough to rape a bunch of people) they'll get motivated.

Motivation is important, you're right. But in terms of personal soldierly qualities, things like discipline, training, and espirit de corps -- the bonding you have with your fellow soldier, no matter the cause -- are more important. Religion delivers motivation, to be sure, but it is not the only motivator. And that doesn't count tactical, strategic, material, and logistic factors.