Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When War lost all it's 'Romance'...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When War lost all it's 'Romance'...

    I'm of the opinion, that while war is a terrible, bloody, awful 'shitty' mess of a thing, we humans are quite good at it. It has been one of the longest occupations of effort throughout history, and let's face it, science wouldn't be where it is today without a few wars to kick it up a notch.

    Thats a simple rendition of what I think. Now, we all know how in the Medieval times it was considered a great honor and a point of pride when a man could state how many opponents his sword had felled or how that dent in his left leg was from when he escaped a group of mad housecarls. Then comes along this object that spouts fire and launches an iron or stone ball: the gun.

    It is my opinion, that the gun took all the Romance out of war. Simple as that.

    Now, then once guns became used by all, Romance came back and it was once again a good chosen proffesion for a civilized man. This continued up to the Great War, when things got to be just a mess of idiotic French Generals, and a new invention called the machine gun.

    Once again a gun took all the Romance out of war.

    Then after the Great War, things went on, military technology was only advanced so much by the British and French; while the Russians and Germans went at it with a new drive; providing us with the new and improved tanks of the middle century. Romance was back in a full metal jacket.

    WWII was the last war of Romance, the last effort to keep some old chivalry in this degrading and dangerous proffesion. Then some genius goes and invents a bomb that can destroy an entire city: A-bomb.

    Once again, a gun, or rather a big-ass bomb, took the Romance out of war. And it hasn't been back ever since.

    Opinions? Comments? Insults? Potato?
    [Wasting Space]

  • #2
    There is no romance about war. It revolves around killing your fellow man. Is having limbs hacked instead of a gaping exit wound more "romantic." How about trireme warfare, where those on the bottom two levels got pissed and shat upon by the top rowers. Oh, how romatic ancient warfare was when compared to modern warfare Bring back the good ol' days.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Trajan
      Now, we all know how in the Medieval times it was considered a great honor and a point of pride when a man could state how many opponents his sword had felled or how that dent in his left leg was from when he escaped a group of mad housecarls.
      You seem to be lost in a daze of romantic stories like those with heroic hunky knights rescuing damsels in distress... Pity they left out the complete pillage, rape and murder that accompanied them. Hear what Ghengis Khan did?

      WWII was the last war of Romance, the last effort to keep some old chivalry in this degrading and dangerous proffesion. Then some genius goes and invents a bomb that can destroy an entire city: A-bomb.
      Yes, the SS were far more chivalrous than this savage, for example.

      The Russian troops who raped 2 million German women were very nice chaps indeed (!)
      HD Ready?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shek
        There is no romance about war. It revolves around killing your fellow man. Is having limbs hacked instead of a gaping exit wound more "romantic." How about trireme warfare, where those on the bottom two levels got pissed and shat upon by the top rowers. Oh, how romatic ancient warfare was when compared to modern warfare Bring back the good ol' days.
        Nice turn of phrase in debunking the “romance” of warfare Shek!
        Also, you may have found the origin of the phrase: ”Shat has a way of travelling downwards”, in the military hierarchy!
        When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Amled
          Nice turn of phrase in debunking the “romance” of warfare Shek!
          Also, you may have found the origin of the phrase: ”Shat has a way of travelling downwards”, in the military hierarchy!
          A quick read of "A War Like No Other" by Victor Davis Hanson should open the eyes of those who find ancient warfare romantic. Even if one doesn't like VDH's political columns, they should enjoy his writing as a classicist. As far as trireme warfare goes, one can certainly say that rank hath its privileges, in this case, get a seat on the top!
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shek
            A quick read of "A War Like No Other" by Victor Davis Hanson should open the eyes of those who find ancient warfare romantic...
            Thanks Shek, for the heads up on VDH book, I have read Thucydides, but a new perspective should be enlightening.
            When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Amled
              Thanks Shek, for the heads up on VDH book, I have read Thucydides, but a new perspective should be enlightening.
              The book is about the Peloponnesian War, but instead of doing a chronological treatment of Thucydides' text, he explores it thematically, with chapters such as "Disease", "Fire", etc.
              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

              Comment


              • #8
                Really, such comparisons are kinda silly. I could write up an essay about how a nice clean bullet in the chest with state-of-the art medical facilities available is much "better" than a dirty gladius blade twisting in my liver, and from a clinical standpoint I might be correct, but in the end I bet I scream just as loudly over each one.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dalem
                  Really, such comparisons are kinda silly. I could write up an essay about how a nice clean bullet in the chest with state-of-the art medical facilities available is much "better" than a dirty gladius blade twisting in my liver, and from a clinical standpoint I might be correct, but in the end I bet I scream just as loudly over each one.

                  -dale
                  Damn skippy.
                  Last edited by Trajan; 31 Mar 06,, 13:01.
                  [Wasting Space]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Oh I don't know, war's damned romantic if you don't actually have to participate in it. You can right epic poems about those with the right stuff, laud the heroes and fallen, have parades and plays and movies in their honour, but most especially think of all those love-lorn women missing those fighting overseas....
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      War is romantic for the historians and the generals on the winning side.

                      Everyone else loses.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Granted, previous comments describing war as nothing but a totally 'unromantic' exercise in killing are valid. However, perhaps one can recognize that it is easier to romanticise about certain eras / conflicts than others. In some cases the romanticism is specific to a particular part of a conflict. Thus, while the land war in WWI is perhaps less 'romantic' than most, the air war is / was considered 'romantic' in some sense. Similarly, the war in North Africa during WWII is viewed as being somewhat more 'romantic' than the eastern front for example.

                        I'm not sure this is related to a particular weapons system, e.g. firearms. In fact, the early firearms were actually rather less deadly than the longbows they replaced. The motivation for moving to firearms initially was not so much their increased 'firepower', but more the fact that it took less training to become proficient in their use compared to the longbow. It seems that the more 'romantic' periods in warfare were characterized by a lower 'intensity' and / or limited scope of conflict. For example, the 30 Years War was pretty brutal, involving relatively large numbers of soldiers in the armies and a great deal of suffering by civilians. This was followed by a period of smaller 'professional' armies that were supplied more and 'lived off the land' less, hence limiting the destruction of war and the direct consequences to a relatively small number of professional soldiers. This was then followed by the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars, with the increased size of armies, living off the land and overall increase in destructiveness. It is thus perhaps easier to see the period of warfare of Frederick the Great's time as 'romantic' than the later Napoleonic War period or 30 Yrs War. It seems this is also cyclic to some extent.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X