You know, in the old days before we had nukes and all kinds of colorfully named weapons, that when one tribe or group got in a war with another and won they'd just murder the entire adult male population and move of the rest into slavery in a foreign land to prevent uprisings and revenge wars. So, do you think that the wholesale slaughter of civilians and bombing cities just 'cause it hurts the enemy morale? Either way many uninvolved members of society get killed over something that their leaders have decided is in their interests. Honestly I think it had more merit to it in the old days since they were smaller societies and usually when they fought over resources or land their livelihoods directly depended on it and if they didn't fight or anything they'd be killed anyways. But then again modern bombing campaigns and impersonal battle tactics aren't really that different. 'Cause sure you bomb a city to get at a power plant your enemy uses, but this means that civilians in the area are screwed over too. Though it may not seem quite as direct, it's really the same thing. Still, I find that facing your enemy in a duel, or line of armies is more honorable and fair then shooting him in the back with a sniper rifle when he can't see you. But can anyone really say that there was ever a better way to wage war?
Oh yeah... killing every man, raping all the women, and selling all the children into slavery is more honorable than bombing a place. Bottom line, war in general is bad. And as technology advances it only gets more brutal. If they had the technology to bomb a city in the dark ages they would have, war is bad in general. And yes there is a better way to wage war...
Yeah, I did say fighting wise it was more honorable, but you're definitely right as far as their actions afterwards, I just assumed you got what I meant.
Ok I see your point. Ancient war was more selective than modern war, as weapons were not capable of as much indiscriminate slaughter. Also, midieval war, was still not honorable. Haven't you seen Braveheart? Remember how the King runs a battle? Thats how most generals fought back then (I'm a big midieval buff) and there is no honor in that.
Well yeah, I know they were just as underhanded, if not more so, they would use fire poison, lotsa things. But I still kinda like the romanticized duels between generals and warrior codes. It's more interesting at the very least.
They still have warrior codes... haven't you heard the Ranger Creed? Thats pretty romanticized. Also, Honorable battle rarely ever did happen in Europe. In the middle east and asian there are a few documented accounts of honorable wars. One Japanese general encamped around a fortress of his opponent, and when he realized the citezens of the town were starving, he sent wagons of food to his opponent as a releaf. He said something like "He is such an strong opponent, starving him and his people is not a suitable death." Also, King Saladin was known to release all of his POW's if they converted to Islam, and would allow them to remain in his camp unharmed if they did not. And he supposedly only excecuted one POW who surrendered, and it was because the guy raped his sister, and Saladin already released him once before.
Whoa. Never knew that. My knowledge is limited to a couple of European battles, Alex the Great's exploits, the overthrow of the Tokugawa Shogunate and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which is highly romanticized as the name would suggest. So, I have very little actual knowledge on the subject.
Yeah... I have a lot of actual knowledge from watching the History channel... only I can only recall the general story, not specific dates and names and so forth. By the way... the Japanese general ended up retreating for some reason, I think another worlord attacked him or something like that, and the other guy sent his forces over to assist his former opponent. After that, they became allies... goes to show, violence isn't the best way to eliminate an opponent.
Well yeah. Most disputes can be resolved other ways, but many seem to like things nasty, brutish and long.
I agree with this. In the old times, people were -not- as selective as people like to romanticize them out to be. They would often kill all or most of the men and this is even seen in the pages of the Bible and also accounts throughout history. Men that weren't killed became slaves. Women who had children in some cases were killed and/or raped. Children could be killed because of not wanting the former men's children to grow up. War in the old times could be genocide of a town, city or village. And this was all done brutally. War is not pretty whether done with bombs or going there with a sword and bow and arrow. People go with the intents to kill and take whatever they want from the spoils. I can say bombs kind of make me think people are 'cowardly' but then again a bunch of people armed to the hilt assaulting villages because of wanting their land or different beliefs etc or lords feuding with lords so the peasants get harmed and massacred because they don't have weapons...it's not that much more brave or honorable. In the end, war kills innocents and that's just how it will probably always be, whether modern warfare or old fashioned warfare is employed. About the only fights one could say were 'honorable' which was based on individual cases, were personal duels as Trodgor mentioned. That's really not 'warfare' though. In war there really are no rules to how nasty people can get except for today with the Geneva Convention. Many atrocities have happened with modern warfare or past warfare and we try to keep 'humanity' in it by that code, but it's just darn hard. I can say that even if bombs are used, often we treat those we find injured and we may hear about dumb things like the guys in prison in Iraq being tormented, but it is NOTHING as bad as old warfare tactics and happens a lot less frequently.
A lot of romanticized duels were one via backstabbing, and treachery... Musashi bragged in his book of 5 rings about how he would only fight someone if he had an unfair advantage. And in most of his duels he did, even in the highly romanticized Kojiro battle... No true warrior is honorable...
