Has technology removed all honour and skill from warfare?

[Reiper]

As per the title, do you think that as we have advanced technologically, the honour and martial skill aspects of warfare have been greatly diminished?

By honour, I mean that old fashioned warfare was simple, up close and personal. You were often fighting to protect your lands and families from massacre, and a single skilled warrior could make a difference even against difficult odds. The battle made you stand face to face with your enemy. I do not want to label modern war as "cowardly" but I do think it required a different kind of guts to wade into a melee of death, or to charge across a battlefield, sword held high. I think the transition to warfare from close range to long range has affected this. Today, the conflicts our soldiers are involved in are much more complex, and often times an individual soldier has no stake in what the conflict is over.

By skill, I mean that a medieval or Roman warrior for example, could train all their lives in the art of warfare, and could become exceptional in single combat. Almost everything that kills you in ancient warfare was preventable, for example, you would not have been disembowelled if you had parried, or you would not have an arrow in the knee if you had had your shield up. Modern warfare on the other hand, can get you killed in a million and one ways that you have no way of stopping or preventing. You can step on a land mine, a plane can drop a bomb, artillery can blow you to kingdom come. There are far more things that can kill you just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so dumb luck has a far greater effect than skill.

It seems like individual far less relevant, since any emaciated 14 year old can pick up an ak-47, and be a threat to even a modern warrior who has trained their whole life.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

'Honour' is a code of rules an individual chooses to follow.

Expecting others to follow the same code is naive at best, especially in a combat situation.

 

[TheIronRuler]

There is a limit our body comes to when we try and train it in warfare. We use tools for everything, the only fighting styles in which we use are bodies are the ones I will consider "honorable". Martial arts are Honorable.

When our bodies can no longer be an effective weapon we turn to tools. I don't think that today's warfare is cowardly. Sure, technology triumphs in this day and age but it was the same when only one side had plate armor, a new kind of arrow or steel weapons. In this day and age there are up-close fights and they are brutal-
Example: In 2006 there was the second Lebanon war. People were on the ground fighting against their opponents. Fighting in urban areas was a mess - You entered the area and had to make your way through the houses. You realize how dangerous that is? Where you sometimes can't spot the difference between civilian and combatant, hand to hand combat existed. So did grenades - Those precious seconds of time when you pick it up and toss it aside - Or when you HEROICALLY place your body on top of it to save the lives of your squad mates.

 

[DJjaffacake]

There's gonna be a lot of shit flying about the honour part. But my answer is no to the former and the latter, because a man who would behave honourably a millenium ago has no less reason to do so now. And as someone who has actually made use of a modern assault rifle and practiced fencing (which I know is not the same as real old swordfighting but shut up), I can tell you the assault rifle was much harder to use. Edit: There were plenty of ways to be killed that you couldn't prevent in the medieval period too: greek fire, artillery, cavalry, disease, famine etc.

 

[Fuhrlock]

Of course honour and skill have been diminished, why? Because wars arn't about honour and skill they are about one armed force defeating another, where the ends justifies the means is pretty much the be all and end all. Honour and the need for skill only act to limit what one side can do and need removing to create more effective armed forces

 

[TheIronRuler]

There's gonna be a lot of shit flying about the honour part. But my answer is no to the former and the latter, because a man who would behave honourably a millenium ago has no less reason to do so now. And as someone who has actually made use of a modern assault rifle and practiced fencing (which I know is not the same as real old swordfighting but shut up), I can tell you the assault rifle was much harder to use.

*cough* European Standard *cough*
Seriously though, An untrained Danish priest shot a European Standard rifle and killed a few Taliban warriors.

 

[dyre]

My definition of "honour" involves the fair treatment of prisoners and civilians, not putting yourself at unnecessary risk so you can stab the guy in the face instead of shooting him from 200 meters (and I doubt the guy would be so happy about "honourable defeat" while his insides are spilling out.)

In that regard, modern warfare between developed nations is usually a great deal more honourable than it was in the past.

 

[Reiper]

And as someone who has actually made use of a modern assault rifle and practiced fencing (which I know is not the same as real old swordfighting but shut up), I can tell you the assault rifle was much harder to use.

I must disagree with this. An assault rifle may not be easy to pick up and use, but after you understand the basic functionality (how to reload and shoot) it is quite straightforward. A sword on the other hand may be easier to just pick up and use without any instruction, but an experienced swordsman will almost always beat a novice.

With guns, an experienced marksman should beat a novice, but much more is left up to chance. If you are caught out of cover, they surprise you from behind, or they just spray and get a lucky shot. Most of these things can be mitigated with smart positioning, but I think the element of luck is greater with firearms

 

[DJjaffacake]

Snipped because reply is so short

What is this 'European Standard' you speak of?

 

[TheIronRuler]

Snipped because reply is so short

What is this 'European Standard' you speak of?

.
The EU has a different standard for arms than the USA. It's more accessible with a laser sight and comfortable grip. It's why the massacre in Oslo went so smoothly, he used European Standard. If he had used M16 then his body count would have been much lower. Damn him for not buying crappy american weapons from the 70s.

 

[DJjaffacake]

And as someone who has actually made use of a modern assault rifle and practiced fencing (which I know is not the same as real old swordfighting but shut up), I can tell you the assault rifle was much harder to use.

I must disagree with this. An assault rifle may not be easy to pick up and use, but after you understand the basic functionality (how to reload and shoot) it is quite straightforward. A sword on the other hand may be easier to just pick up and use without any instruction, but an experienced swordsman will almost always beat a novice.

With guns, an experienced marksman should beat a novice, but much more is left up to chance. If you are caught out of cover, they surprise you from behind, or they just spray and get a lucky shot. Most of these things can be mitigated with smart positioning, but I think the element of luck is greater with firearms

The thing is though, most people don't realise just how hard it is to hit your target with a modern weapon, shooting from just 100 yards it can be very difficult to be accurate, whereas with a melee weapon you've got a much better chance even if you haven't the first idea what you're doing. And the points about coming up from behind or getting a lucky hit can be applied equally to close combat.

 

[SckizoBoy]

By skill, I mean that a medieval or Roman warrior for example, could train all their lives in the art of warfare, and could become exceptional in single combat.

Just a minor quibble with that, but Romans sucked at single combat as their whole mentality was fighting as a unit, protecting your neighbours and killing those who try not to kill yourself but the men beside you etc. (same with Greeks - namely hoplites - as well)

OT: Skill? No, not really, just a different skill set is all...

Honour? Depends on the context and the combatants. However, I will say that increasingly, these days it's less about how you kill (or not kill, perhaps) but just about how many you kill. Honour was when you could surrender without your enemy killing you out of hand or incapacitating you to impotence (in all senses of the word). Honour was when you could accept prisoners without them trying to take you down with them in a blaze of false glory.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Snipped because reply is so short

What is this 'European Standard' you speak of?

.
The EU has a different standard for arms than the USA. It's more accessible with a laser sight and comfortable grip. It's why the massacre in Oslo went so smoothly, he used European Standard. If he had used M16 then his body count would have been much lower. Damn him for not buying crappy american weapons from the 70s.

Well I don't know where this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80#L98_Cadet_General_Purpose_Rifles] fits in with that, but it's what I used and it didn't have a laser sight or a comfortable grip.

 

[SckizoBoy]

The thing is though, most people don't realise just how hard it is to hit your target with a modern weapon, shooting from just 100 yards it can be very difficult to be accurate, whereas with a melee weapon you've got a much better chance even if you haven't the first idea what you're doing. And the points about coming up from behind or getting a lucky hit can be applied equally to close combat.

This is so true. In the heat of a battle, it is borderline impossible to aim properly while bullets, mortars, shells etc. etc. are flying about.

Because it's fresh in my mind: Battle of Arnhem

Brits - 10005 Paratroopers and pilots
Germans - approx. 25000 Panzer troops & assorted infantry

9 days of fighting, sum total of 12000 casualties. Fatalities: approx. 2500, and it is considered one of the bloodiest battles of the western front, and how were most of the fatalities incurred? Bayonet charges & fire-fights within 10m.[footnote]And considering it involved an SS Panzer Corps, it was a very 'civilised' fight as far as WWII was concerned.[/footnote]

Not arguing or anything, just wanted to add to your point is all...

 

[DJjaffacake]

The thing is though, most people don't realise just how hard it is to hit your target with a modern weapon, shooting from just 100 yards it can be very difficult to be accurate, whereas with a melee weapon you've got a much better chance even if you haven't the first idea what you're doing. And the points about coming up from behind or getting a lucky hit can be applied equally to close combat.

This is so true. In the heat of a battle, it is borderline impossible to aim properly while bullets, mortars, shells etc. etc. are flying about.

Because it's fresh in my mind: Battle of Arnhem

Brits - 10005 Paratroopers and pilots
Germans - approx. 25000 Panzer troops & assorted infantry

9 days of fighting, sum total of 12000 casualties. Fatalities: approx. 2500, and it is considered one of the bloodiest battles of the western front, and how were most of the fatalities incurred? Bayonet charges & fire-fights within 10m.[footnote]And considering it involved an SS Panzer Corps, it was a very 'civilised' fight as far as WWII was concerned.[/footnote]

Not arguing or anything, just wanted to add to your point is all...

I shall add to your point in return.

The Lee Enfields and Mausers that most British and German soldiers were equipped with at the time were ridiculously accurate and had a much longer range than modern assault rifles, so if that was the case then, it would be even more so now.

Case in point: Loughgall Ambush 1987

The SAS fired 600 rounds at close range, and killed 8 men.

 

[Reiper]

I am not saying that using a rifle is easy. I am certainly no crack shot myself (my vision is not great). However, what I am saying is that with firearms, and at medium-close range, whoever gets seen first by the other guy often ends up dead.

Also, I feel many of you are ignoring the other elements of modern war that result in individual skill as a soldier becoming meaningless. These elements are things that will kill you that you have no way to prevent or anticipate. You may be the best marksman in the world, but it won't save you if you step on a landmine or a plane drops a bomb on you. All your years of training were meaningless, and you will never even realize you are dead. The only equivalent to this, in ancient warfare might be a catapult shot landing on you, but if you were paying attention even this can be anticipated.

 

[theparsonski]

I'd personally rather fight a war with swords and spears and shit instead of guns, because it's true, nowadays you can have the most experienced, hardened soldier that there is, and all it takes is for him to step on an IED and it's game over. Look at the battle of Thermopylae, where 300 Spartan warriors held off an army of Persians estimated to be around the million mark. If that was, say, 300 SAS men against even 2000 Taliban insurgents, I reckon the Taliban would end up winning.

It's actually a huge amount more about luck than it is skill nowadays.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Also, I feel many of you are ignoring the other elements of modern war that result in individual skill as a soldier becoming meaningless. These elements are things that will kill you that you have no way to prevent or anticipate. You may be the best marksman in the world, but it won't save you if you step on a landmine or a plane drops a bomb on you. All your years of training were meaningless, and you will never even realize you are dead

That's war for you, and it's always been that way. Linchpin of the phalanx? Meet lucky spear thrust. Knight who has trained his life to fight and is outfitted in the best gear of his time? Horse takes an arrow, falls on his leg, and he dies of infection. Biggest and baddest warrior in a prehistoric tribe? Takes a slingstone to the head.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I shall add to your point in return.

Well, it was your point, but who's counting?!

I am not saying that using a rifle is easy. I am certainly no crack shot myself (my vision is not great). However, what I am saying is that with firearms, and at medium-close range, whoever gets seen first by the other guy often ends up dead.

See the problem here is that you overestimate the ability for a soldier to:

1) Spot movement
2) Bring his arm (which is a fairly weighty piece of kit) to bear quickly enough
3) Fire it accurately to bring about a killing shot
4) Hope the first shot kills otherwise the sprays gonna take a lot of luck to find a hit

I'm not saying this cannot be done, but this requires skill of its own and for the most part, this doesn't really happen. See, unless you've been shot at, or worse yet, hit, you don't know how scary being in a combat situation is. Soldiers have been trained to try overcoming that fear, but unless they are completely dehumanised, nothing will ever prevent them from twitching whenever they hear a 'twack' sound since a bullet clipped their helmet, or from laughing manically because a lucky shot killed the guy next to him/her. Like the rest of us, they don't want to die and you can be sure they won't stick their head up to take a clean shot unless they damn well know no-one's going to be taking pot shots at them. This is why more rounds are expended providing covering fire than with the distinct intent to kill. When the bullets are flying, heads are down. Unfortunately, I'm referring to conventional combat here where the two adversaries think alike, so I can't say much for asymmetric warfare.

Also, I feel many of you are ignoring the other elements of modern war that result in individual skill as a soldier becoming meaningless. These elements are things that will kill you that you have no way to prevent or anticipate. You may be the best marksman in the world, but it won't save you if you step on a landmine or a plane drops a bomb on you. All your years of training were meaningless, and you will never even realize you are dead

I hope you do realise that the basic skill of the foot soldier hasn't really changed in a few thousand years. It's never been about the skill of the individual. It's been about the discipline of the whole army, the strength of will, trust in whom he fights alongside... and numbers. Regarding the last thing, it's the commander's use of the numbers that dictates the course of the battle, but no amount of skill can help you regardless of context when the line of battle breaks or the men/women around think 'fuck this' and leg it, because in front of you will be the analogous wall of steel that's going to smash your head in and nothing's going to stop it.

 

[LetalisK]

Uh, no. Technology has enabled us to attribute more honor to warfare, imo. And as for skill, I can't say because I have no clue what sorts of training or skill warriors from other eras required. I can say that being a competent warrior today does require a great amount of skill.