Development of warfare and honour on the battlefield

[Nocta-Aeterna]

Disclaimer:This is not a pro-war post. Also, neither me nor my friend know much about army life: great unaccuracy abound!

A while ago, a friend and I got in a silly discussion about medieval and modern warfare. He stated that he preferred wars to be fought with medieval tactics and strategy, whereas I prefer that wars are fought with modern weapons.

He believes that medieval warfare is more decisive and has fewer civilian casualties. Two armies meet on a predetermined field, duke it out for a day and that's that. Most important, he says there's no honour to be had in flinging missiles at your overseas enemy.

I think that, if war breaks out, it should be fought as effectively as possible. modern tactics require less training for recrutes. A mondern infantry soldier requires a few months of training whereas a medieval infantry soldier requires years. The amount of fielded soldiers needed to fight a battle with modern equipment is far less than in a medieval battle. Also, artillery and armour support can help force a breakthrough. As for civilian casualties: modern battles can, and will be fought in urban areas, with all risks that come with it, but at least there isn't all that post-battle pillage and rape. Also, I can't find anything about predetermined battle fields, so I don't know wheter or not they did that.

What is your opinion on this matter?

 

[Snor]

well one thing i can tell you is that medieval warfare had massive amounts of civilian casualties:

1. armies did not have supply lines back in those days and lived of the land (read: pillaged and plundered the locals)
2. the battle was fought
3. the winner loots the losers city and in most cases kills all the local population with a different relegion

so no those few hundred or thousand people dieng of bombs is actually not that bad considering history

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Ron Pearlman. Other than that, they are basically the same. Instead of chainmail, there's kevlar. Missiles to boulders, swords to guns, horses to vehicles, and valor to shiny medals.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

There is no such thing as honorable warfare, because honor is defined at the cultural level. When cultures clash to the point of war, the victor's honor system is what history remembers.

Consider the Vikings - their everyday life was just as sophisticated as the rest of Europe, but they raped and pillaged because their culture accepted these ideas as necessity. Earlier in their history, they were getting royally fucked over by the Romans, whose honor system defined Europe of the Middle Ages. An honor system based on conquest.

It is not limited to the Western world either - the Ninja were just as villainized by history as Vikings, because they didn't utilize the well-defined honor system of the time. They were considered untrustworthy thieves and mercenaries - pirates even, rather than spiritual warriors of legend.

My point: war is war. Whether efficient or "honorable", it is nothing more than a culture clash that has escalated beyond political and economical means of resolution. There is nothing philosophical about one group trying to kill off another group - it's just a part of being human.

Additionally, the concept of "civilians" and "combatants" should be held with the highest scrutiny. When combatants are not in combat, they are merely civilians. This duality puts any argument based on compassion toward the "innocent civilians" on shaky ground.

 

[CLEVERSLEAZOID]

I just hope to god no-one figures out how to make Vita-Chambers from Bioshock. Otherwise wars would be fought with lots of people brought up on Modern Warfare 2, who would be too busy teabagging fallen enemies, not worrying about being shot because they'd be able to respawn not too far away.

OT: I agree with Crunch, War is war, its human nature to bash people with sharp sticks if you don't agree on the same point of view.

 

[GIJoker]

Err... Yeah. I'm one of those 'untrained' modern soldiers you're talking about. Infantry, point of fact. I'm not going to get into the ethics or morality of my career choice (nor should I have to; I'm fighting for YOUR freedoms. Ha-haha!)

Look, you clearly have a backwards perception of how a medieval soldier was 'trained' and the training modern soldiers get. Medieval 'soldiers' were lucky to be trained at all before they were conscripted by their local lord to go hurl themselves at the enemy du jour. The average soldier was a archer, skirmisher, foot soldier or man-at-arms who maybe wore a thick jacket to withstand the swords of the equally inept clown swinging it against him. Sure, there were professional militaries (the Swiss during the Renaissance, for instance), but even those guys could be replaced by someone of equal size who just managed to be lucky enough to survive a battle or two. Your friend is glamorizing "old school" combat without having any real idea of what it actually entails.

As for you: yes, basic training for an infantry soldier only lasts 14 weeks. Granted, they are the longest 14 weeks of your life and if you don't believe me, fuck it. Go sign up. They may tell you that you can't get out because you signed a contract, but that's bull pucky. There's always an out. However, should you make it through basic (which entails learning to land navigate with a compass and a map, learning to shoot, disassemble, clean and reassemble an M4 carbine, an M240B machine gun and a M249 machine gun, carry a 50lb ruck up to 12 miles in 3 hours, perform first aid for gunshot wounds, broken limbs, heat exhaustion and frostbite, assemble and troubleshoot a radio, learn radio etiquette, throw a hand grenade, place a claymore mine, fire a M203 grenade launcher, fire an M2 .50 cal machine gun, dig a hasty fighting position and learn all 9 battle drills), you know what you're considered at your first unit? Absolutely nothing! Hell, you go through three months of training just to register as worthless on the radar of guys who have seen combat. Civilians? They're treated kindly like you would a slow sibling. In addition to the three months of basic training I received, I've been training with my first unit for about four months now. The NCOs continuously lament how underprepared we are for actual combat. So that's going on eight months now of training (with live rounds, in full kit, having spent a month solid out in the field in February), and I'm still considered nowhere near ready to actually face combat. And I'm generally considered one of the more squared-away privates!

There was actually a news article I read a bit back (sadly, I can't remember it so I can't cite it) that spoke with some concern about how the modern soldier is no longer the 'citizen-soldier' that our forefathers envisioned; that we now require so much training as to be regarded as specialists in our own field of study to the degree that a general call-up or draft would be disastrous simply because it would take a year or more to turn your average civilian into something even remotely combat-worthy. This all, of course, is from the perspective of your friendly infantryman. There are a host of other 'military' jobs that don't require half the effort or discipline of an actual combat MOS. Then again, if you're not infantry, you're a fucking POG.

If you still believe that your average infantry soldier can be any Joe off the street, go look up the Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks (Level 1) Handbook [STP 21-1-SMCT]; it's about two inches thick. And yes, there's a level 2 handbook, and level one is just the basics one is expected to master while they are still a private. It doesn't include peripheral tasks like vehicle driver, specific radio operations, language/cultural skills or anything that a sergeant or above would be expected to know.

Just something to consider next time you play MW2: your average soldier is years of training, not a 5 second spawn time or a 20 second build queue. Oh, and that "fighting for your freedoms" bit was a joke. I could give a fuck less who appreciates why I fight. It just beats the hell out of a desk job.

Edit: One last thing I forgot to mention. I'm basic infantry, i.e. not airborne qualified, not sniper, not Ranger, not SF, none of those fun little schools. Learning to jump out of a plane (which, admit it, is just learning to fall) still takes 2 weeks, sniper school is a month, Ranger school (which is what most people think of as your 'average' soldier; think Blackhawk Down) is two months that ages you 10 years, and SF school is between a year and a half to two years. And all that's without even seeing combat. Plus, there's no such thing as being "done" training.

 

[Blueruler182]

Honestly, I'd partially prefer medieval. I think there's a bit more honor to be had with sword to sword, stuff like that, and the lifetime of training the knights and actual soldiers got, but GIJoker gives a fair point. With today's military, it's very unlikely that I'm going to get drafted, and I like that fact. The fact of the matter is, in any time, War is messy. Wanting swords and such on a battlefield would be kind of cool, but I think we're going to have to wait until Combat-Armor gets invented before we actually see something like that, and the only people who've ever showed Honor on the battlefield were knights of old, but they never really got into the thick of it unless they had to. They were too important. I did like the fact that there were rules of engagement, that's the only thing I'd like to bring back if I had a choice.

 

[Sir Bob]

Back then the combat was more WYSIWYG, no air support, no roadside bombs, no snipers and no real long range artillery.

*Edit, I also thing swinging swords has more charms and more honour than shooting the other guy in the face from a great distance*

 

[Billion Backs]

Honor is a pretty stupid concept.

People tend to have an incredibly overly romanticized view on medieval warfare. I'd blame fantasy books, general "medieval" set movies and games, and so on.

There's nothing glorious about hundreds of people charging at each other, when most of the people in the front inevitably get trampled and die in anything resembling a fair even combat.

Hell, as far as average soldiers go, I can guarantee that even the lowliest infantry today is more trained and knowledgeable than most soldiers in the medieval times. First aid, various weapon training because shooting a gun successfully is not as easy as clicking your mouse/controller.

What GIJoker said, basically.

There is no such thing as honorable warfare, because honor is defined at the cultural level. When cultures clash to the point of war, the victor's honor system is what history remembers.

Consider the Vikings - their everyday life was just as sophisticated as the rest of Europe, but they raped and pillaged because their culture accepted these ideas as necessity. Earlier in their history, they were getting royally fucked over by the Romans, whose honor system defined Europe of the Middle Ages. An honor system based on conquest.

It is not limited to the Western world either - the Ninja were just as villainized by history as Vikings, because they didn't utilize the well-defined honor system of the time. They were considered untrustworthy thieves and mercenaries - pirates even, rather than spiritual warriors of legend.

My point: war is war. Whether efficient or "honorable", it is nothing more than a culture clash that has escalated beyond political and economical means of resolution. There is nothing philosophical about one group trying to kill off another group - it's just a part of being human.

Additionally, the concept of "civilians" and "combatants" should be held with the highest scrutiny. When combatants are not in combat, they are merely civilians. This duality puts any argument based on compassion toward the "innocent civilians" on shaky ground.

And now I don't even have to write a long winded confused rant. Thank you!

 

[Valkyrie101]

Modern combat is far more effective, and causes less damage to civilian populations and infrastructure (unless you're tlaking full-scale nuclear war, which is a little different). Anyway, it's a moot point, because it's imposisble to restrict war to medieval styles. It isn't a game with rules, it's carried out however people see fit, and given what's at stake people will always innovate and advance.

 

[SextusMaximus]

1. Loads of civilians died in Medieval warfare.
2. Medieval battles lasted days and weeks.
3. Medieval soldiers were trained by the hundreds and they took less than a year to train.

 

[AssButt]

Part of the reason the American Civil War was so brutal was because they used medieval tactics with modern (at the time) weaponry.

With today's technology if two armies met "at a predetermined battlefield" no one from either side would show up and instead just artillery/air strike that place into a smoldering crater.

Most conflicts today don't even have predetermined combatants, let alone predetermined battlefields.

 

[Good morning blues]

I find the idea that modern infantry don't require as much training as medieval infantry to be pretty laughable. Modern infantry need to know how to operate complex modern weaponry and how to effectively work as a team in a variety of situations; medieval infantry needed to know how not to accidently spit themselves on the pointy end of their stick.

Additionally, the concept of "civilians" and "combatants" should be held with the highest scrutiny. When combatants are not in combat, they are merely civilians. This duality puts any argument based on compassion toward the "innocent civilians" on shaky ground.

The lines between combatant and non-combatant are blurred in the sorts of battles that the American have recently been getting themselves into, sure, but it's not too difficult to separate combatants from non-combatants by identifying which ones are posing a threat to their enemies. "Innocence" in this context refers specifically to the battlefield; non-combatants are not employing violence against anyone or threatening to do so; as a result, they are not legitimate targets.

Refusing to target non-combatants isn't a matter of compassion, it's a matter of rights. People have rights to be free from physical harm; by reserving the right to deal physical harm to other people, soldiers give up their right to protection of the same.

 

[Nocta-Aeterna]

-le snip

Sorry, didn't mean to offend.
So yeah, I guess you learn something new every day.

As for those 14 weeks being the longest of ones life: I believe you. 12 minutes running already feels like an eternity to me. I'd most likely shoot myself in the foot on day 1.

EDIT: also, I didn't mean to imply modern soldiers are less trained than medieval soldiers. It's just that from what I understand, the archers at least take life long practice and daily training to remain serviceable.

 

[GIJoker]

you didn't really offend, you just flashed your ignorance of the subject. trust me, most folks figure that it's enough to just pick up a gun and go with it. that's why we have an army. heh.

i understand what you mean by saying good archery requires training, but go watch 300. that scene where they blot out the sky with arrows? yeah, that doesn't take much training. point arrow that-a-way, pull, release, repeat. that's warfare. shooting targets is competition.

on a related note, wwii soldiers were so conditioned to shooting targets that they froze up when expected to shoot at actual people. that's why we now train with man-shaped targets.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

Additionally, the concept of "civilians" and "combatants" should be held with the highest scrutiny. When combatants are not in combat, they are merely civilians. This duality puts any argument based on compassion toward the "innocent civilians" on shaky ground.

Refusing to target non-combatants isn't a matter of compassion, it's a matter of rights. People have rights to be free from physical harm; by reserving the right to deal physical harm to other people, soldiers give up their right to protection of the same.

I wasn't referring to physical violence against civilians. Combatants do the actual fighting, but civilians are still targeted by attrition and propaganda. The civilians are the entire reason wars continue for any length of time - it's where combatants come from. Until the civilian population is defeated, the nation in question is not yet defeated. In ancient times this was done by genocide (cavemen), citizenship (Rome), or breeding (post-Roman Europe), to extinguish the defeated nation culturally.

In modern times, the US give peace signs, Coca-Cola, and Mickey Mouse to stamp out the culture of defeated nations. The effect is the same, even if the approach comes from a different angle. "Hey, we're awesome. You should be just like us." isn't much different than "You suck, have a blanketful of smallpox." Japan is probably the best example of this effect in the modern sense.

"This place isn't big enough for both of us." - that's what going to war means.

 

[manythings]

I'll stick with I prefer things that don't result in a fuck load of corpses and since only soldiers bodies were even counted (the press ganged masses we probably just left to rot) you can't take any old time estimates as being accurate. More importantly "Honour" on the battlefield is a myth; war works on the principle of killing the other guy before he kills you, honour just makes it sound less like organised murder.

 

[wooty]

A friend of mine is now on his third tour of Afghanistan, he says that there are still pre-determined battle fields, usually chosen by the Taliban these days. He told me that in the 12 months he spent out there in the past, he was only ever sent out primarily to engage the enemy 3 times, the rest were amushes.

Even after being in the army for 4 years now, he said the training is always ongoing, theres still stuff hes learning all the time, so its not just a few months of "this is gun, it goes bang, people fall down".

Also, an awful lot of modern fighting is still soldier to soldier combat, though many people still have the view that its all about pushing buttons. If that were true, then there would be no fatalities on the more advanced nations troops.

 

[tsb247]

There is no such thing as honorable warfare, because honor is defined at the cultural level. When cultures clash to the point of war, the victor's honor system is what history remembers.

I would argue against this strongly - especially when air combat is concerned. Chivalry was, and still is to some extent, a HUGE part of air combat that has its roots back in medieval combat traditions. It was seen as unsporting to kill an unarmed opponent, and pilots (WWI and WWII) were known to salute opponents and peel out upon noticing a weapon malfunction or some other problem that may have kept their opponent from posing any real challenge. Combat was thought of as a game/sport, and it was a sport between gentlemen - skilled combatants that were relatively few in number.

Here is a paper tackling the subject of chivalry in combat (mostly from an air combat standpoint).

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-educ/econ/upload/Chivalry.pdf

It does not so much prove my point, but rather gives a rational approach to the concept of chivalry in air combat and demonstrates circumstances in which it is likely to occur.