What nonsense is this? The Romans were a people of law, who practiced warfare as a means of extending civilization, not of some kind of great personal triumph (usually). Their enemies were the ones who found glory in battle. The Goths and Gauls were groups without the need for civilization, and found war to be the highest achievement. The concept of the "valorous knight" is also ridiculous. Men that were built from youth to be nothing but tools of a lord, not to defend their own honor, but the honor of a man will increasingly more power than them, without any other reason than "because he wants people on the other side to die".Champthrax said:
Honor on the battlefield is not a civilized concept. The Iliad might paint it that way, much as the advertisements for the U.S. Marines tell you all about glory, without ever mentioning that Marines are always the ones dropped into a hotspot of great risk, to clear something out. In Napoleonic warfare, they'd be called "cannon fodder", groups sent in to distract the artillery so a more tactical strike was used--and you'll recall that in that particular kind of warfare, the idea isn't valorous hand-to-hand combat, but to fill as much square-footage of land and air with as possible. Honor on the battlefield is a lie told to soldiers to get them to keep fighting.
