It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Tardacus
To quote another famous general from the civil war:
It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee
originally posted by: mikegrouchy
One cannot have an elite or an Aristocracy (whatever you want to call it) without armor. Firearms put an end to armor. By the day of the Civil War, nobody was wearing armor. All yearning for a return to chivalry and/or honor is futile in the age of firearms.
Unless the elite have invented a new, classified, type of armor that renders most small arms useless. Then yes, one could see a return of a ruling class, that self reinforces it's codes of conduct, and doesn't have to negotiate with anyone else. That benevolently lets us peasants serve them on their debt farms.
President Kennedy stood for Honor. If he had been wearing the same armor as the North Hollywood Bank Robbers (1997) perhaps he would still be standing for Honor. I have noticed municipalities in America are trying to criminalize body armor now. Serfdom here we come.
originally posted by: namehere
the fall of rome is the biggest reason the western world has become so warlike, chivalry of medieval times to colonial times was merely a sad attempt at imitating roman methods of warfare, i'd say modern warfare is much more inline with how rome fought at it's peak, much more organized, logical, structured, geared towards volunteerism and minimising losses.
it took rome hundreds of years to understand what we just recently started learning the past century after almost 1,500 years of warring, war has minimal benefit in the long run and should only be used when you really need it, trade and diplomacy is much more useful.
if you want to get down to it, guerrilla warfare started in ancient china, and used by them to fight the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, and Alexander the Great.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Asktheanimals
You are mistaken. The reason that we don't line up in battle formations and fire at blocks of people anymore is because it is wildly inefficient and terribly costly. When the Civil War began, they tried to continue this method of warfare, but gun technology had improved too much. Guns were much more accurate at longer ranges and were faster to reload. As a consequence this caused MASSIVE slaughter on both sides.
It's largely one of the reasons that the Civil War is still considered the bloodiest war that America has ever fought.
This trend of military tactics trailing behind the technology happens in every war. With each war, the armies line up using tactics of old with newer technology that makes those tactics inefficient. Eventually the tactics catch up with the technology and warfare evolves.
Though your romanticized version of warfare and chivalry is a joke. War has ALWAYS been nasty, violent, and full of war crimes. These things just weren't talked about before. They were just thrown under the umbrella term "War is hell", everyone nods in confirmation, and that's that.
In my mind any war truly worth fighting is worth meeting the enemy 1 on 1 on the field of combat, face to face. You might think it farcical and romanticized but my view is any method of warfare that diminishes one's own humanity isn't worth using. So you kill your enemy yet lose what makes you human. From that context it is very easy to understand why so many soldiers suffer from PTSD and commit suicide. They realize they have lost much of what made them human. Our modern army is so deployed and trained as to force these conditions upon them simply to survive.
Over time, its meaning has been refined to emphasise social and moral virtues more generally. And the Code of Chivalry, as it stood by the Late Middle Ages, was a moral system which combined a warrior ethos, knightly piety, and courtly manners, all conspiring to establish a notion of honour and nobility