Listening to an Amon Amarth song, I noticed that what was being described in the verses looked more like a Greek Phalanx than what I would imagine a Viking army would look like.

Hold the lines! Move as one!
In unity our victory's won
Our shields will form a mighty wall
United we shall never fall

and

All are one
And one is all
Side by side
The battle calls
All are one
And one is all
Shield by shield
We'll never fall

So, I wonder, are those lyrics even remotely accurate, do I misunderstand the reasons the Phalanx was such a big deal and walls of men were pretty widespread, or what?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994-1995)

During the opening stages of the First Chechen War, the Russians launched a poorly planned assault on the city of Grozny. While they were eventually victorious, they lost more than a thousand men and hundreds of tanks. Almost half of their armored vehicle losses happened in the first day of combat, when four huge armored columns attempted to storm the city without adequate preparation and very little (if any) infantry support.

It has been known since World War Two that armored vehicles become vulnerable in the close quarters of an urban battlefield. In fact, the Russians were the ones who proved this most decisively when they sucked German armored forces into places like Stalingrad. This principle became even more acute after the introduction of cheap, highly effective anti-tank missiles. And these principles become even worse if your enemy knows where your tanks weak spots are, as the Chechen fighters (many of whom were veterans of the Russian military) did. It's suicide to send tanks into a city unsupported by infantry, and the Russians knew this.

So why did they do it?

Hey everybody, this is my first question but I love lurking on this sub! Anyway, I'm not 100% positive that this belongs here or anyone will be able to answer, but here goes anyway, and I'm sorry in advance if this is not considered within the scope of this sub. I was reading through the wikipedia page on jury nullification and I came across this statement:

In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.

I am wondering specifically if anyone knows why the Supreme Court's decision in the Sparf case has led to judges punishing defendants/lawyers who try to inform juries of their right to nullify? Does anyone have any specific insight into why this is the way things are done or why the case was interpreted in this way? Also, the following paragraph states:

In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.

What is the reasoning behind this? Why would officers of the court be considered ethically prohibited from informing jurors of their legal right to nullify a trial or law that they consider wrong/unfair/etc?

I'm looking forward to your responses, thanks in advance.

Note: I also posted this in /r/asklaw, but this seems to be a slightly more active sub. Any legal historians out there by any chance?