Modern Warfare vs Medievil Warfare

Warfare today is merely about who has the best weapondry and technology. It is not the soldiers themselves doing to fighting, using skill and cunning to take down there enemy, it is the weapons they employ.

I find no honor in todays "wars", to use a gun is more like being a coward then an actual soldier. To kill someone at 400 yards away, when they didnt even know it was coming is kind of the cowards way out of the situation.

Although, that is how warfare has changed, keep your soldiers alive aslong as possible to hold an advantage. Personally, I prefere ancient warfare, the underdog always stood a chance to win, unlike today. Ancient warfare was about tactics and strategy, todays wars take strategy, but are more or less firepower oriented.

The only "war heroes" today, are "heroes" because the man beside them took the bullet, instead of them. You could not right a book, "The Art Of War" - Sun Tzu, in todays times. There is no "art" anymore, wars were won because of the tactics used, not because they came with automatic weapons, while there enemy had mere rifles.

Like I said above, war has changed from courage and skill, compared to technological advancements. Sure, modern soldiers do have courage, but you cannot say that standing in formations and fighting in a formal manner does not take courage.

But with the introduction of projectile / high velocity weapons, war had to change. I guess you could really argue this point for quite sometime and get no where. I guess war is war.

I just prefere ancient tactics and strategy.

Which kind of war would you rather fight?

"I do not yet know how world war III will be faught, but I do know that world war IV willl be faught with sticks and stones."

you know nothing, really, strategy is still important, like sun tzu said "war is based on deception" and the element of surprise too, was war dishonorable with catapults or arrows too?

War is hell... that is the reason it is avoided. My option is to give my side all the good stuff. latest weapons. The other side sticks and stones. That way I'll know all my fellow soldiers will be coming home to live the rest of there lives. Thats the reason weapon tech has evolved so quickly. I'd much rather hit someone out at four hundred yards, or call in an airstrike than have to beat them to death with a club and have to wash there left overs off my clothing.

You my friend can have a stick and I'll take the gun. You can die with "honour" and I'll win the war.

On the stradegy side. Todays war have way more stradegy then in the past. The have to try and co-ordanate Army, Navy and Air forces into combat and not try and get lost in all the confusion. (BTW I think you Americans did a great job In Iraq, you do have a great Army, Navy and Air Force). The officers are under much more pressure than before also, because they have to try and win will trying not to get there soldiers killed. Where's from what I understand the ancient conflicts you are talking about the infantry man was expendable, and I'm not talking acouple of grunts. I mean thousands apon thousands, and I'm sure most of them would happily have gone into combat with the weapons we have today. So they were able to come home.
I just hope we keep well ahead of our potential enemy's that we may have to encounter in the future.
Nice Idea for a topic to _Blind_

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Die Trying]

Originally posted by _BLiND_
Which kind of war would you rather fight?

A peaceful one

Warfare changes depending on the methods of offence and defence, maybe in the future less will be spent on offensive (guns) and more spent on defence (armour) meaning warfare is a closer hand to hand combat.

Honor and courage on the battlefield will greatly increase once mystical weapons are developed that can rival and shield against the advanced physically based armaments currently utilized

At which time, individual courage and cunning will play an even larger role in warfare than it did when medieval weapons predominated on this planet.

Chivalry and honor are not dead.

They are just taking a long hiatus.




[edit on 16-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]

Medievil warfare was just as bloody and desparate as Modern Warfare. The idea you have about Honour on the battlefield only mattered if you were noble born, and then you were'nt guareteed to recieve Honourable treatment if you were captured. Take Agincourt for example. Henry V had a few hundred Knights of Noble birth executed because he didnt have the men to guard them, it didnt sit well with the Knights who were with Henry but they understood the Military necesity of what he did.
The idea of Knights charging into battle to engage in Honourable feats of arms against other Knights is a Myth, the British Longbow put an end to that.
If you really want to see what a Medievil battle and what war was like at the time take a look at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Vey bloody and if you can find any Honour there then you will be lucky.
The War of the Roses were about as bloody and as without Honour as you will find in any modern war.

Appologys for the spelling, i have a slight case of word blindness and am still trying to find a spell checker for Firefox.

In the greater context, honor and chivalry is not based on birth or wealth, but on character and intention in defending the innocent. To transition in that context is a noble death, as with the soldier who leaps on to a live grenade in order to save his or her buddies in battle.



[edit on 16-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]

I have never been to sure about whether honour had a place in war. Killing and death is just that killing and death. There might be honour in saving those that can not fend for themselves and i would agree, but splitting a mans head open is neither honourable or noble. Anyways.

I would rather fight hand-to-hand, non-projectile. I often wonder on what it must have been like on those ancient battlefields were men would charge each other cutting, stabbing, slashing, bludgeoning, impaling. It really must have been horrific. But then all death in war is horrific whether ancient or modern. It’s just that when faced in hand-to-hand combat with your enemy it strikes me as more personal.

In ancient times there were technological advantages too, think about even ancient history Greek was powerful area, but was full of small provinces that all shared advanced methods to be stronger than others, simple by training you can effect in many ways, gear, balance of sword / spear or any type of weapon its always been technological just seems for us like stone age, still there were countrys that mastered different type of arts and by so gained better position when facing superiority numbers.

Today wars arent all about US attacking almost defendless countrys compared to itself and shooting billions of dollars worth cruise missiles. Theres wars all around world all the time, Africa has civil wars constantly you just dont hear it, there winner is the one having better guns, buts its much more medieval than your modern warfare and it shows clearly by much higher death counts on both sides and brutality towards other people. They try to wipe each others off literally to make sure they can keep the lands they conquered. IF you have much higher technological advance that can outrule whole need for such, Israel for one compared to Palestinians is such, but that war has too many reasons and its influenced outside Israelian borders. So Israel and Palestine conflict isnt best example.

Ill rather see modern wars than medieval ones that can kill civilizations, the kill counts that US cause by it "coward" way of waging war are much less in numbers compared to any today war scenarios, think about Iraq it has 25million and was in full scale war, still theres bitching about civilian casualtys for example, if you had medieval war scene those civilians would be all targets and maybe dead by now, why? Medieval times civilians didnt get extra threatment.

Also cant forget what you leave behind, sooner or later come back at you, so if medieval times you wouldnt weaker other faction much enough and as you said underdog position can win, the conquering nation has risk of mutination. Thats why Ceasar had strategy, conquer, destroy and rule, literally provinces were left much weakened so it was possible to rule large area as Rome had under its control and in the end you know what happened to Rome despite of that fact.

There was no Honour in Medival times today most countries armies are made up of people who want to fight for there country.In medievil times and recently armies were made up of men who were killed if they didn`t fight so had no choice they were going to die either way.The winner on the battlefield had more to do with the amount of men as much as the tactics used.Todays wars are fought with tactics and planning passed wars were manly fought by marching into the enemies lines.

You know, there hasn't been a modern war to really see how much of a factor tactics still are, but WW2 certainly showed how important they still were. Hitler cost the Germans the war with his stupidity. The Germans had superior everything to the Allies. They should have, and could have won easily.

I would never point out the Midieval warfare as a time of great honor, or strategy. Most battles in those days were just a matter of leaving the other side less dead. Most of those in charge cared nothing for their troops, and just threw men at each other.

If you want to talk about the great time periods of war, you have to look back to the times of Rome, and earlier into the ancient world.

I was strictly basing ancient warfare on Medievil times, I had rome and other armies in mind too. Thats why i kept switching when I talked, from using medievil to ancient...but I guess rome isnt that that ancient.

The idea of Knights charging into battle to engage in Honourable feats of arms against other Knights is a Myth, the British Longbow put an end to that.

The long bow didnt put and end to that, it just made the gap between the two opposing sides greater. First came the storm of arrows, then it was left to hand to hand combat.

I wasn't thinking of knights really, knights were hardly as numerous as the standard infantry. Too me ancient warfare seemed more based on countering / flanking / formations, not really driving down the street in a humvee shooting things that move. I put wars, in " marks, because the "war" on terrorism, or the "war" in iraq. They are not really wars.

I guess the same tactics are used, bomb the Sh__ out of your enemy then go in and clean up the mess. But wars back then were wars, they were not based on false excuses, no countries since Germany have said, I want tyour country and I am going to take it, now the true intent is hidden in "peacekeeping" and "liberation"...

I guess, wwII actually had tactics employed, flanking, ambushing and things of the sort. So... nothing has really changed, just technology.

But I still find it more of a war, when 2 sides "throw men at each other", because they both have swords / arrows, not 1 side with normal rifles, compared to the other side with automatic rifles / eyes peices allowing you to see around corners. (They do exist)

Oh well, my opinion, your opinion, both good

Better tech has been deciding the outcome of combat since the first caveman picked up a rock and throw it at another person.

There is no honor in war and there never has been. These stories of knights being honorable warroirs are myths. Killing someone with a spear and not a gun does not hold any more honor.

Skill is just as important as it was at any time I would rather have one very skilled rifle man then a whole platoon of people that cant shoot.

War is both a science and a art they are both important today and in the past.

For the rich countries, war will evolve towards the concept of swarming drones and long range missiles to perform attacks from a relatively safe distance, while the not so rich countries will perfect the art urban warfare, trying to discourage invaders from actually setting physical foot on their soil, just look at Syria partly succesfull to obtain massive amounts of man portable anti-tank and man portable sams from Russia, these are guided weapons that are a few generations ahead of the infamous RPG-7 wich is already a considerable insurgency pain in the neck....

The superior offensive deployment capabillities in the open field of the West , Russia and maybe in 15 years, China, India, Pakistan) will have many other countries trade their second/third-rate offensive materials for a urban-DEFENSIVE dont tread on me posture, and paradoxically this is maybe not such a bad thing for world peace ???

On the downside, what we are witnessing, many of these countries might also seek nuclear capabillity as dont tread on me deterrent, wich considering the often political turbulent situations in those countries might fall in the hands of people who will use them for offensive or terorist purposes....



[edit on 16-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

How was a mounted man covered in armor riding down a bunch of terrified peasants armed with pitchforks and mallets honorable?

Warfare has ALWAYS been a horrible thing and anyone that thinks different has never been there.

You go to do the job you are sent to do and get home to your family in one piece as soon as possible and use the tools at hand to do this.

the rest is nonsense

You are right, but still, watching the The Three Musketeers has a romantic touch that you don't find in "Hamburger Hill"

the man with the sword takes a considerable risk in defending his believes/honour, that takes some courage that deserves some respect in itselve, , while the technocrats of the future could be sitting in an airconditioned warroom, pressing a button and order pizza online, watching the show unfold from their satellite streams...


[edit on 16-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

Originally posted by Amuk
How was a mounted man covered in armor riding down a bunch of terrified peasants armed with pitchforks and mallets honorable?

Warfare has ALWAYS been a horrible thing and anyone that thinks different has never been there.

You go to do the job you are sent to do and get home to your family in one piece as soon as possible and use the tools at hand to do this.

the rest is nonsense

Thats what i was trying to put across Amuk. Your way was more to the point. But still, have a look at the Battle of Bosworth Field to see what i meant.

Originally posted by Countermeasures
You are right, but still, watching the The Three Musketeers has a romantic touch that you don't find in "Hamburger Hill"

One interesting thing about the Musketeers. Notice their name Musketteers The Real musketeers used Muskets(guns) quite a bit and thus the name.

So real life was alot less romantic

I guess I fell prey to Hollywood brainwashing

I didnt think about it either till I was watching a show about fencers and they brought that up. They would have also made use of a rapier since the follow up shot from a musket could take quite awhile.

I also guess The three fenceteers didnt quite sound as good either.