Has technology removed all honour and skill from warfare?

[Pyro Paul]

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.

Of course the SAS would not stand against 2000 insurgents...
the SAS are not light infantry, they are specialists.

If you took 300 Light Infantry...
US Marines, US Rangers, US 101st Airborne, UK Royal Marines, French Chasseurs Alpins...

i don't think the insurgents would stand a chance...

 

[Burst6]

/snip

Yeah this guy has it right. Most medieval soldiers didn't use swords, instead sticking with pole arms like spears. Swords were complicated weapons with relatively short range that could easily hit allies or walls with wide swings if you weren't careful.

Spears on the other hand had a really big range, were pretty simple to use, and because they were designed for stabbing they could operate easily in tight spaces and with a lot of other people close by.

Eventually the pike and the lance pretty much dominated melee battle. Knights stuck to riding on horseback and using lances and foot soldiers, like evilthecat said, got close together and held out their pikes as a primary strategy.

 

[hawkeye52]

I think people also misunderstand the honour aspect of the middles ages and how it can change. Crossbows by the English during the 100 years war were seen as unhonourable because any idiot could use them whereas with a bow like a welsh/english longbow which could draw at a poundage of anywhere between 100-185lbs and I bet near enough most people here couldn't draw that if they tried never mind fire continuously for 20 shots. For example I do a bit of archery and I can draw 50 comfortably for about an hour but even that can be a strain and I'm probably of average strength and so required a life of training from a young age hence the old english law that every boy must practice archery on a sunday.

Their was also the French (I think though it could have been Milanese) General who refused to use cannons because he thought they were to unhonourable and would rather mow down the enemy with a glorious cavalry charge.

But armies get past this and develop the best weapons possible and incorporate them into their technology. You also have to take into account that armies didn't fight honourably most of the time anyway actually the battle of Agincourt was a good example of this.

The British were outnumbered and running out of supplies and weren't receiving reinforcements anytime soon and so utilised the best bet they had to perfection that being the longbow. They sat on a hill and laid out stakes at the bottom and dug pit holes and muddied up the area to make it as hard to traverse as possible on horseback (The French having some of the best cavalry known at that time if not the best). The French infantry went in first to try and absorb some arrows and act as fodder but were making slow progress and were getting mown down to quickly and so the cavalry just ran them over pretty much and got trapped in the mud with horse legs breaking on the pits. The English had some right fun after that because they descended down the hill and just got out their knives and sliced the necks through the armour joints of the French nobility since they couldnt get up because they were wearing heavy plate and were being weighed down by the mud. Not exactly the battle that the french wanted but it was brutal efficient and effective and a great example of old military tactics and history for the English and a massive blunder for the French.

 

[NightHawk21]

If you think war was ever honourable, you must be seriously delusional. War has never been honourable, its always been just a gigantic cluster fuck with innocent people dieing left and right for some retarded asshole who calls the shots. But since you brought up Roman times, lets take a look at specifically made war in Roman times also stupid.

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.

Most soldiers still think they are fighting to protect their lands and families (as to the amount that actually are, and are not fighting for the political ideals and greed of there current leader, is a matter up for debate). As for the single skilled warrior. In an all out way it didn't make much difference how skilled you were, and real life isn't a movie where one guy stands against and cuts down an army of 100.

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.

Some soldiers still train for years even now and will become exceptionally good at shooting or close range combat. The amount such skills influence whether you win or die in a gigantic open fight is probably minimal at best, when you're just slashing at anything that moves.

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.

You seem to have a very mythic view of ancient warfare were every fight revolved around a couple heroes going at it, every other soldier was just background noise, and the outcome of that fight would be decided simply by the hero's fight. Don't get me wrong it makes for great movies and stories (which is preciously why that is a lot of what you see), but it isn't realistic to think that everyone forms a circle round the generals and watches them fight.

As for random stuff that could kill you, sure it is perhaps more limited, but off the top of my head, you could be killed:
1) An arrow fired into the fray
2) A scared horse/elephant running around after a failed charge
3) Another soldier stabbing you or cutting your knee while you weren't looking
4) Any form of other projectile weapon

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.

You have obviously never fired a gun or you don't remember the first time you fired a gun if you think it is that easy to hold a gun on mark and accurately shoot something. He'd be as much a threat as you would be if I gave you a short short gladius and threw you in the coliseum versus a Centurion. You put the kid and the soldier both at 30m and 999 out of 1000 that soldier will win.

 

[Reiper]

I would give a kid with a gun a much better statistical chance of beating a modern soldier with a gun, than a kid with a sword beating a trained swordsman.

 

[lacktheknack]

in a war and combat context

With that out of the way, no. It's there never was "honor" in war, and the skillset has simply been adjusted. It still takes skill to target correctly in spite of winds and counterattack possibility, just not the traditional war skills of actually being able to hold your ground in a punchfight.

 

[Xangba]

There are no more clear-cut villains, there are no more unambiguous victories, there's no more room for Jingoism, and nationalism, in warfare. And if you ask me? That's a good thing.

You really think there's none of that in the modern world? Oh geez...

P.S. Save for very few individuals, there have NEVER been "villains."

Look, you have to take that post in context. That's my third post on this because of my text limit. Find the first two, then talk to me. Secondly, NO! I don't think there's any more room for patriotic jingoism in war, and it doesn't really work anymore. If you're going to call me out on something, actually back it up.

I read your other posts, but that statement is completely independent. Half of war is centered around those things, it's always been that way. There will always be those things. Don't get hostile on me for pointing out that fact, and don't make assumptions about whether or not I have read your other posts.

 

[black_omega2]

Obviously, now we must make the jump from modern soldier to Space Marine. Plenty of honour and skill when it comes to Space Marines. Well... depends which chapter you talk about I suppose.

 

[chimeracreator]

No. There was never any honor in warfare to begin with, and the new hardware means you need MORE skill than before. Two hundred years ago you didn't need the spatial awareness or trigger discipline, you didn't need the windage skills, you didn't need to be anywhere near as fit, and you damn sure didn't need to be able to fix computers while quite literally under fire.

Two hundred years ago you most certainly needed those skills. Remember, that was back in the day of sailing ships and trust me that came up. Artillery also existed then so it was a big deal. Windage has been an issue ever since people started using projectile weapons. Likewise fitness was at least as important because of the lack of combined arms for military deployments. When it comes to killing people while trying to avoid being killed skill and discipline are always important and in a war group tactics are absolutely vital no matter what century it is.

Now I am not saying that modern all volunteer armies don't show a level of skill and fitness that did not exist for the bulk of human history, but that doesn't mean that the soldiers of yore didn't require a fairly large skill set as well. Modern soldiers do have some other serious advantages thanks to the whole not constantly dying of dysentery thing and not being ravaged by plagues while still young thus permanently stunting their development.

 

[Mad World]

Obviously, warfare is different now (total war). However, I would never say that there is now no honour or skill. There is still honour, and there is most definitely still a ton of skill required. They train for a reason. Try going into a war without any training... you probably won't get very far.

 

[DarkRyter]

There is no honor in war.

It's just the mistakes of men compounding.

 

[Patrick Buck]

Well the other day, I saw a fight. Bare fists, no tech.

I'm going to be honest, it wasn't exactly honourable. So if tech has lost MORE.... Jeeze.

 

[Esotera]

As for skill, look at how the Libyan rebels fire their guns, then look at how the SAS fire their guns. Skill is very much still there, it's just that most modern wars have involved one side with a disproportionate amount of firepower (such as air strikes) that mean skill doesn't need to be used as often.

I'd disagree. Yes, combined arms is a big thing, but that doesn't mean skill isn't involved. How much training does it take you to become a lieutenant? It's not exactly easy.

I wasn't saying that all armed forces are more skilled than others, just that warfare today is a lot more dependent on hiding from bullets and calling in artillery support, which doesn't really require that much skill. Training is superior these days, but that doesn't mean that troops get to use it very often.

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

Honour in combat is romanticising. Combat has always been cruel and brutal, whether you are fighting with swords or with rifles.
Honour in military comes from how you treat others; the treatment of prisoners and of civilians. How you hold yourself to a standard of decency and do not waver from it. Honour comes from discipline and respect. Looking at things like the Abu Ghraib torture, one feels uncertain about the state of modern military honour.

 

[Scarecrow1001]

Someone has been playing to much Call of Duty.....