He even goes so far as to compare our willful ignorance of killing to our ignorance of sex. Recently, I read a review of a new book, The Gun, on Salon.com that explores how few Americans, despite common gun ownership, actually know in detail what bullets do to the body. Treating violence realistically in literature and the rest of culture seems to be a blind spot. Beowulf and other heroic tales show us it is also not merely a “modern” phenomenon.
According to Grossman, only about two percent of the population can kill without remorse, and the rest of us must be conditioned to do it. The two percent are psychopaths, though mostly not criminal psychopaths. Beowulf is one of these, which already sets him as exceptional. Grossman sees the easy, unrealistic treatment of violence in media (literature) as social-conditioning technique to condition the statistically normal people to kill.
Grossman details factors that determine if a human will overcome reluctance to kill: demands of authority, group absolution, predisposition of killer, total distance from victim, and target-attractiveness of victim. Milgram’s famous experiments on obedience and aggression at Yale in the 1960s showed that two out of three people  could be manipulated into giving “(seemingly) lethal” electric shocks to victims on the orders of an authority figure. Militaries have been using this aspect of human nature for years. People are far more motivated to kill if ordered to do so by an authority figure who is close, respected, seen as legitimate by the would-be killer, and intensely demands the killing. Group absolution refers not simply to the group saying a killing is “OK,” but also the courage that comes from being in a large group such that the killer feels the group is doing the killing and the killer feels physically safer. Predisposition is the killer’s inborn temperament, recent experiences, and training or conditioning. Distance can by physical or emotional, and more distance of either type makes the killing easier. Reluctance to kill increases exponentially with closer physical proximity. Finally, the target attractiveness includes such things as: Is the victim a danger to the killer, can it be done without much risk, will the killer gain, will the victim lose?
Taking all these factors together, the ideal situation for a kill is against enemies seen as less than human from a great physical distance (such as a bomber), under the direct, barking orders of a respected officer at a trained soldier’s shoulder with buddies nearby, the soldier desires vengeance, and the act will incapacitate a dangerous enemy at little risk to the killer. That should be obvious. The least ideal situation would be an untrained person on their own without orders having to kill with their bare hands an enemy who can match them and maybe is someone the killer can identify with. In this situation, a killing is unlikely.
Based on all this, we can comprehend the typical Anglo-Saxon and Viking way of warfare. The basics are well described by Jeff Bond, Darryl Barfuss, and Masson Emerson of Utah Valley State College on their “Anglo-Saxon Warfare Group” webpage. Battles usually consisted of two opposing lines of men armed with shields and spears forming a “shieldwall.”. “Ultimately, the battle was determined by who could break or envelope the opponents shield wall first. Numbers were a primary factor in every battle.” Once the shieldwall was broken, individuals would either surrender or be picked off one by one more easily.
