Modern Vs Medievil Warfare

It was not Hitler's fault. He is blamed for everything just because he was the most hated person of 20th century. Germans WERE NOT SUPERIOR TO ALLIES. In fact after the USA joined the war it was clear the Germany will loose, no matter what they do.



True, the most famous generals are from antics - Alexander, Hanibal, Scipio, Caesar etc...

War should be avoided as much as possible. Regardless, there is honor in defending innocents and one's home. That is what separates the barbarians from the Guardians.

Without Guardians, there are no sovereign nations, only large groups of people living within an illusion of autonomy because their countries are easily taken over, their women raped, their lands and monies stolen, and their general population subjugated.

Blind, if you have an interest in linear tactics you might enjoy reading David G. Chandler's "The Art of Warfare On Land". ISBN 0-141-39009-3.

Examples of tactics in modern warfare can be gained from several sources.
1. The movie "We Were Soldiers", which is an -extremely- accurate retelling of a certain battle in Vietnam. This movie demonstrates something about as close to linear tactics as ever occurs in modern battle.

2. Col. John Antal's TDG books, especially Infantry Combat: The Rifle Platoon, can give you an outstanding insight into modern tactics.

3. Reading Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising. This demonstrates the way modern war is fought at the Strategic and Grand Tactical levels.

4. Get a copy of General Kurlak's pamphlet "War Fighting". It's hardly even a book- you can read it in one sitting.

Examples of things that almost never happen can be obtained from watching Starship Troopers. If you want to enjoy that story you should read the book instead.


Simply "throwing men at eachother" as an institution, has not happened in a long time. Linear tactics are a lot like American or Canadian Football. The goal is to maneuver and create mis-matches and unfair fights at key points within the larger "fair fight". As artillery and firearms evolved- thanks in no small part to the innovations of my favorite historical commander, "The Lion of the North", it became extremely rare for a battle to be fought to its conclusion. The 18th century was the age of limited warfare. Armies would manuever, skirmish, lay siege, etc as the situation dictated, and the army which found itself in an untennable position would either surrender or withdraw if able.

Last but not least there is the question of individual valor. That has actually increased as the result of modern technology. Way back when, a single man didn't really have any options facing 100 men. It couldn't be done. Today, the proper tactical employment of weapons can make a small group or an individual capable of facing a much larger group, but this introduces a difficult choice. One has to ask himself, "Do I believe in myself this much. Can I really do this, and am I willing to risk the consequences of failure". This has given rise to acts of heroism like those of the snipers who volunteered to defend the 3rd crash site in Mogadishu, Somalia.

It has also occasionally lead to men taking on seemingly overwhelming odds against modern weapons. I have had the privlidge of actually meeting Col. Lewis Millet twice. On a place called "Bayonett Hill" in Korea, Millet's company found themselves cut off and surrounded, heavily outnumbered and short on ammunition. He lead his men down the hill in a bayonett charge, saving his company in a situation where many would have considered surrender the only hope.

Last but not least, I have to put a word in for my fellow Devil Dogs in Iraq. These men aren't running down the streets blasting individual enemies with inferior weapons.
When they were coming into the country they ran gauntlets of ambushes and there were acts of heroism which in wars past may very well have earned the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Now they patrol in places where they know full well they are not wanted, where there is a strong chance that they will be outnumbered against well armed enemies who have had the opportunity to set plenty of traps. Just because the insurgents can never hope to drive us out of Iraq does not mean that the average grunt is not in danger.
GIVE 'EM ONE! (Now if you read that, you dang well better say "KILL" in your next post. That's how Marines are shown recognition in training).

Not true. The war was lost at two key points, and they were the result of orders given directly from Hitler.

The Battle of Britian would have most likely been won had Hitler not focused on attacking cities (which would have taken the British out of the war, and made any American aid impossible), and the full efforts of Germany would have crushed Russia.

The later parts of the Russian campaign were all screwed up. Hitler's orders lost the battle of Moscow for the Germans.

The man didn't know his own limitations. He interfered too much with his generals.

The Germans had the best soldiers, best tanks, best planes (minus bombers, which did cost them big), and best infantry weapons by far.



While there are just as many acts of heroism today than in the past, I can not accept that there are more.

Men did have to act more in groups in the ancient world, but small elite forces often times overcame massive forces. If anyone wants an example (really the best one), then look no further than Alexander the Great. The man fought an army 5 times the size of his own, with an overwhelming disadvantage at cavalry, in the open field, and managed to flank and crush them. He fought against some of the most impressive armies assembled in the ancient world. Has there been any army put together a better cavalry force then what Darius had at Guagamela (minus maybe the Mongols)? The massive number of elephants he faced at the Hydapses was among the most ever assembled.

I don't think 300 men could ever stand up to 200,000 men in today's modern warfare like at Thermopylae?

I suppose the "more" statement is very much subject to debate, and very likely unprovable. My point is that valor has found it's application in the modern age just as it did in ancient times.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT. that is all i have to say to you. to your statement about: "being a soldier now takes courage, but not standing in a line..." whoever stands in a line while your severly outnumbered, or in revolutionary times, stand in a line and watch them fire at you is just plain stupidity. and for you to come out and say that shooting someone from 400 yards away is the cowards way out, is wrong. what about in ancient or medievel times, they had longbowmen, archers, crossbowmen, when you have a volley of hundreds of arrows, you could probably hit people at least 200 yards away, maybe more. im not an expert on bows and arrows. why dont you find something better to do with your time, theres plenty of other boards you can post on.

This post has been editted out of existence in response to banshees call for civility.

I do still want to get the message across though Maverick- if you want to be treated with respect around here it's important to show that respect to others as well.

We don't have to agree but we have to be civil.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by The Vagabond]

Let's calm down, gang.
Totally not cool, all this name calling and snippiness, so let's not do it.

Thanks.