Glorious War VS War is Hell

[jklinders]

If we're talking reality I choose neither.

It's not a glorious or honorable endeavor but avoiding at all cost makes matters worse. The buildup to WWII shows that in spades.

Better to look at it exactly as it is. As long as we have separate nations all vying for the same real estate and resources there is going to be tension. It is an occasional brutal thing that happens when those nations won't agree on peace. It's going to happen and pretending it won't is to harm yourself and your people.

 

[Hero of Lime]

As long as you can understand the difference between reality and fiction, I don't mind war being depicted as glorious, or interesting. Or even battling anything really. Realistically, going into some dark cave fighting monsters to find treasures or some sort of quest item would not be pleasant realistically, but the thought of it in a fictional story sounds like an awesome adventure.

So as far as fiction is concerned, I am okay with both depictions. "The War is Hell" stories are certainly more tough to feel good about reading/watching/playing, but that's the point. Though even the lighthearted glorious war stories usually throw something in about how war is actually bad, and everyone hopes peace can come as soon as possible. This is common in Fire Emblem games for sure. It totally makes war out to be glorious, but in support and story conversations, the war is inherently bad.

 

[lacktheknack]

I want war and fighting our enemies for a cause that YOU believe in to be honorable

That's all well and good as long as you agree with the cause.

I, however, want a theocracy. Are you SURE you want that to be an "honorable cause"? Because I bet you really don't.

 

[hermes]

There is no glory in war. The notion is just romanticized ideas created and perpetrated by people that never even dirtied their clothes in a battlefield. The idea of a glorious war is so much an oxymoron that works of fiction that are based on them could as well be using armies of busty women in metal lingerie for all the care they give to realistic depictions.

I confess without shame that I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. Even success, the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers... It is only those who have not heard a shot, nor heard the shrills and groans of the wounded and lacerated (friend or foe) that cry aloud for more blood and more vengeance, more desolation and so help me God as a man and soldier I will not strike a foe who stands unarmed and submissive before me but will say ?Go sin no more.?

 

[Erttheking]

.

War is hell and has ALWAYS been hell. Innocents have ALWAYS been caught in the crossfire and always will. It's just that prior to more modern communication, it's been harder to see and it used to be easier to just think of the enemy as "the other, inhuman, so it's ok if they die". You think that medieval wars were honorably fought? Hell no. The only time war was even REMOTELY civilized was when the british lined up two columns of troops against each other and had them fire off a bunch of rounds and whoever had the least casualties won. Which didn't last long before their opponents decided "Fuck the rules, if I take cover behind this tree and pop off shots between their shots, I'll kill them all and not get killed!".

War with the Zulu and neighboring tribes was kind of like that, except with throwing spears instead of guns. But then Shaka Zulu said "You know what would be more effective? If I used a shorter spear, ran up to the other guy and stabbed them. And if I had other guys attacking from the side." Things...escalated quickly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mfecane

 

[Willinium]

I want war and fighting our enemies for a cause that YOU believe in to be honorable

That's all well and good as long as you agree with the cause.

I, however, want a theocracy. Are you SURE you want that to be an "honorable cause"? Because I bet you really don't.

Well. . .Theocracy's like any government can have their policies and mandates manipulated. You are free to fight for YOUR cause just as I am free to fight for mine.

 

[cleric of the order]

I think this might be relevant to the thread in general.
In a general sense I enjoy the nature of war, not that I'd want to put my neck out for my country.
The more challenge based, rout and run down formation fighting is a much nicer form of combat than modern war and i'd much rather those sorts of a wars because I'm less likely to be killed by ever big gun and his dog.

Glory and honour "return" to warfare?

What is glory and honour and how does it apply to warfare?

I assume our understanding is deeply rooted in the greekcoroman understanding of the concept
Glory being esteem and position in the hierarchy that can only be gained by being a soldier and honor is doing right by your family, ancestors and city state as well as fighting with respect for one's combatant. Though considering the Romans the latter maybe removed.
Those cultures had a focus on hero worship, aspiring to an ideal and that might be why there were so many idiots trying to be Alexander the great after his death.
A lot of this is muddied because the world hegemon and our countries are effectively merchant states and ever since the war involving the Austrian fella most large states have taken steps to avoid large conflicts. Also the counter culture revolution didn't help.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I've never understood the chivalrous characters in fiction who claim that they seek honor on the battlefield. There is nothing honorable about killing another person. Especially when it's for the ideals and gains of a ruler who probably doesn't give two shits about you. I've always thought that those knightly characters had to be borderline psychotic to have their views on war. It's why when I watched Fate/Zero I found myself really hating King Arthur. She had the audacity to judge her master for using "dishonorable" tactics thinking that she was somehow better than him because she killed people while looking them in the eyes.

I really the Malazan approach to war. The marines often acknowledge in their heads just how fucked they must be from all of the fighting. Many wish they were doing something else, and almost all (at least on the inside) are scared shitless when real fighting starts. Erikson will have moments of glory and relief here and there throughout battles, but it's vastly overshadowed by the horror of the killing and what people are capable of.

 

[Silverbeard]

I've not been in any wars myself, neither directly or in the crossfire of one but every military sort I've spoken to (all of them served in the US armed forces in Afghanistan) usually describe their war as being boring. There's a whole lot of marching around, constant drills and tedious inspections and occasionally some quick and vicious combat in which everyone does a whole lot of shooting and too many people die. Not glorious or hellish but just boring.

Now of course it goes without saying that these descriptions are theater and timeline specific- the soldiers I've spoken to were all involved in the late stages of the USA's campaign in Afghanistan when the forces had moved from directly fighting the locals to training the locals to fight each other. It's quite likely that a soldier who was in the first wave of the invading force would have faced much more hellish conditions than one in Afghanistan today so... take that for what you will.

 

[stroopwafel]

If a war is fought for survival I wouldn't call it 'glorious' but necessary perhaps. However the wars of the last half century or so have all been pointless with dubious and ill-informed underlying motives. Like all the U.S. military campaigns after 9/11 like the war in Iraq that replaced Saddam with ISIL and a refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize Europe. Yeah, real 'glorious'. All those soldiers and civilian casualties died for nothing and good luck being haunted by the specter of that conflict for many generations to come.

Even ignoring the human cost most of the time war just makes matters worse. The people making the decision are also always stupid(bordering on delusional) or questionable or both. Militaries are abused for dubious political motives so many times that I sometimes wonder if it's even a good idea that they are under civilian control. Maybe like a supreme court they should just serve as a deterrence and independent arbiter without interventionist policies. It's almost always civilians to blame going against the better judgement of military advisers.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

War with the Zulu and neighboring tribes was kind of like that, except with throwing spears instead of guns. But then Shaka Zulu said "You know what would be more effective? If I used a shorter spear, ran up to the other guy and stabbed them. And if I had other guys attacking from the side." Things...escalated quickly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mfecane

Oh yeah, I remember that from Extra History. Shaka was kind of a freakin' asshole. XD

 

[Satinavian]

One of the things why WWI was so different was the scale. It was the first big war between fully industrialised sides. Before industrialization it was pretty much impossible for a nation to field this high a percentage of its population for years and supply them. You simply couldn't dig trenches across half the continent and actually man them and have continous fighting everywhere. It would have been unsustainable and way beyond ressourses of nations involved. If you look up the numbers of armies of Napoleonic wars they are utterly miniscule compared to them of WWI. And the difference is way beyond population increase. The same is true for the decisive battles. Waterloo and the Somme are really not even remotely on the same scale.
Also advances in technology and equippment meant personal heroics became even less important than before.

Yes, that changed the view of war in the world. A lot. But it was not the first time that happened. I think the 30-Years war had pretty much the same impact on the view of religious war in central Europe. It was an utter desaster that depopulated whole countries. And it was the last time the big European nations waged a religious war ever. It really drove home the idea that you shouldn't wage war for that reason. Many of the modern western religious tolerance stances were born in its aftermath (even if at first the "solution" was for the rulers to choose freely, not for the subjects). The regional denominations at the armistice of the war are pretty much still present today as no one even dared to try to proletize or convert outside these boundaries for centuries for fear of stirring up a similar catastrophe
Yes, different western christian groups still fought, but never again primarily or even supposedly over religion. And especcially not where the 30-years-war actually took place

So, no, it is not that new. Really really bad wars do change public perceptions.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Those cultures had a focus on hero worship, aspiring to an ideal and that might be why there were so many idiots trying to be Alexander the great after his death.

Plenty of people trying to be him before his birth as well. As well as the "glory", he amassed a massive amount of wealth and got himself an enormous empire. Avarice and ambition are understandable motives.

Unusually, he'd be involved in the fighting himself, though.

 

[freaper]

This poem sums it up perfectly:

Spoiler: Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!-An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.-
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

The "Glorious War" myth has always been wielded by people who had the least to lose and the most to gain from conflict. Unfortunately, poor, uneducated and disenfranchised young men always pay the price.

 

[cleric of the order]

[
Plenty of people trying to be him before his birth as well.

I meant that he was the prefect living example of the Homeric ideal.
A hero in almost all senses of the word (via it's original meaning).
Immediately after you have men like Pyrrhus trying to ape him directly.

As well as the "glory", he amassed a massive amount of wealth and got himself an enormous empire. Avarice and ambition are understandable motives.

I'm not sure that's just it.
If he wanted to just sit pretty with the empire he won for his father he could have done it, ruled over Greece, Thrace and Macedonia. Arguably the total destruction of the Persian empire could be seen as preemptive but then why did he have to be dragged under threat of mutiny back from Indian. The man was strange, never stopped to enjoy his conquests.
This is beyond discontentment with his empire, he had just conquered the largest empire until the roman one would come along.

Unusually, he'd be involved in the fighting himself, though.

Not all that unusual until war became a game of logistics, most kings would take to the field unless or sometimes despite infirmity.
Sargon was said to lead his attacks himself even in old age
Every roman senator until the end of the empire was a veteran of the legions. The infamous Gaius Julius Caesar fought in the field well into his old age. Prechristianity it was expected that if they would lose the one of the consuls of the roman force would make a blood back to their gods, their lives for the enemies and throw themselves into the thick of it.
Hannibal on the fields of cannae was said to have taken up in the middle of the celt ranks. In zama if it happened he was also there.
All of the Greek Kings when to war with their men.
Richard the Lionheart died on the field.
We lost Alfred the great and an english king on the fields of Hastings against William of Normandy.
There are numerous priest kings of the church that would lead from the field.
I think around the time of the new model army you see kings stop going to war, mostly be it's a bad idea.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not sure that's just it.
If he wanted to just sit pretty with the empire he won for his father he could have done it, ruled over Greece, Thrace and Macedonia. Arguably the total destruction of the Persian empire could be seen as preemptive but then why did he have to be dragged under threat of mutiny back from Indian. The man was strange, never stopped to enjoy his conquests.
This is beyond discontentment with his empire, he had just conquered the largest empire until the roman one would come along.

In his case, yes, he'd been brought up with it since he was a teen, he knew little else.

I meant that people following his example could have other reasons for doing so.

Not all that unusual until war became a game of logistics, most kings would take to the field unless or sometimes despite infirmity.
Sargon was said to lead his attacks himself even in old age
Every roman senator until the end of the empire was a veteran of the legions. The infamous Gaius Julius Caesar fought in the field well into his old age. Prechristianity it was expected that if they would lose the one of the consuls of the roman force would make a blood back to their gods, their lives for the enemies and throw themselves into the thick of it.
Hannibal on the fields of cannae was said to have taken up in the middle of the celt ranks. In zama if it happened he was also there.
All of the Greek Kings when to war with their men.
Richard the Lionheart died on the field.
We lost Alfred the great and an english king on the fields of Hastings against William of Normandy.
There are numerous priest kings of the church that would lead from the field.
I think around the time of the new model army you see kings stop going to war, mostly be it's a bad idea.

War has always been about logistics, and many rulers would avoid fighting. Caesar himself did on occasion, though also would participate directly when required. IIRC, at the Siege of Alessia, he only took part in the final battle because if he lost he'd be doomed either way.

Having said that, yes, for warlords it's quite usual, I was thinking more of rulers known for things other than wars such as Darius or Xerxes. No reason why being a good kind, being a good general and being a good combatant should happen to the same person, thought this happened.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

There is no glory in war. The notion is just romanticized ideas created and perpetrated by people that never even dirtied their clothes in a battlefield. The idea of a glorious war is so much an oxymoron that works of fiction that are based on them could as well be using armies of busty women in metal lingerie for all the care they give to realistic depictions.

I confess without shame that I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. Even success, the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers... It is only those who have not heard a shot, nor heard the shrills and groans of the wounded and lacerated (friend or foe) that cry aloud for more blood and more vengeance, more desolation and so help me God as a man and soldier I will not strike a foe who stands unarmed and submissive before me but will say ?Go sin no more.?

Now there was a man who knew exactly what kind of dumpster fire war was, and never hesitated to loudly and persistently try to explain it to people. When everyone else was calling for conflict and saying it was just going to be a quick, civilized affair, Sherman was desperately sending letters to every friend he had, on figurative hand and knee begging them to not let this happen because it was going to be the biggest shit show humanity had ever been on the receiving end off (At the time, anyway). And when everyone else was years into the war and struggling to find a way to make it not so shitty, he was marching with the perfectly understandable conclusion that war is shit, it's always going to be shit, and nothing anyone could do could make it less shit, so you might as well tear the proverbial band-aid off in one quick pull and get it over with.

There have been many people who have written on the horrors of warfare, particularly modern war, but I don't think anyone has ever understood it quite as well, and portrayed the truth of it quite so clearly, as Sherman.

 

[cleric of the order]

In his case, yes, he'd been brought up with it since he was a teen, he knew little else.

That could be his motivation but I'm not certain, the Hellenistic ideal was to great men all rounders. He was educated by the best minds at the time, including Aristotle.

I meant that people following his example could have other reasons for doing so.

Certainly but at least with his direct successors (and i admit I could be romanticizing it) there was a culture of hero worship and that was the general ideal. I figure a lot of it is a product of their cultural obsessions with virtues and heroes.

War has always been about logistics, and many rulers would avoid fighting.

. Logistics in that sense is a personal idiom, so uh sorry about not choosing a better term. I meant that with the creation of the new model army war lost it's human element. One did not have to take to the field to issue commands, battle lines became massive to the point that it would be beyond ineffective to have a leader take to the field.

[quotw]
Caesar himself did on occasion, though also would participate directly when required. IIRC, at the Siege of Alessia, he only took part in the final battle because if he lost he'd be doomed either way.[/quote]
Jesus there was a battle I could do with forgetting, mostly due to the leaving the women and children to rot between alessia and his palisade.
Man fuck that Jullii when i think about it, the brutui were best Romans.

Having said that, yes, for warlords it's quite usual, I was thinking more of rulers known for things other than wars such as Darius or Xerxes.

I think for them it's a matter of court for the Persians, they were subjugating a great deal of land and unlike Alexander who never consolidated it they had to deal with numerous issues of insurrection and court intrigue. Those intrigues were more their war than the field so I think you have a point there. That being said I don't think it's unusual for rulers who have security to lead from the field, if not from the lines. Then again my mind is filled with Germanic kings(and one celtic queen [Madb]) that fought in the field, between charles martal to his sons to the english kings who died almost always, kings of the church, caliphs,etc

No reason why being a good kind, being a good general and being a good combatant should happen to the same person, thought this happened.

I think that's the ideal that comes of the barbaric peoples until they hit such a high level of urbanization/civilization that going to war becomes detrimental for statecraft and one's life.
Which is why likely you see people from city states doing it most often come to think of it.

 

[Adamantium93]

War has always been hell. The "Honor and Glory" angle was perpetuated by the people who needed soldiers. They would lure in peasantry with those sorts of promises and, inevitably, most would die horrible deaths far from home or be unable to adapt back to civilian life. If you were on the battlefield, you likely lost most of your friends in combat. You were always hungry, often cold, and unbearably dirty with mud, blood, and insects. You were sick, in pain, and tired. Your clothes were always torn in one place or another and every day could be your last. Hell, more soldiers died in war from illness, the elements, hunger, or exhaustion than from an enemy blade.

If you were "lucky" enough to see battle, chances are you and your untrained comrades would be fodder for the enemy. Your job would be to serve as a distraction, break their front line, or absorb the brunt of their first charge/volley. Keep your formation, hold your ground, and you'll die. Break and run, and you'll die. Try to charge your enemy, be a hero, and you die. Even if, by the grace of whatever higher power you prayed to, you survived, you got to loot the dead and begin marching again for the next battle. If, by a mixture of luck and resilience you survived the war, you would carry physical and mental scars with you for the rest of your life that could kill you just as easily as a battle could.

And that doesn't even begin to cover what happened to civilians/noncombatants.

The reason why "War is Hell" is more prevalent nowadays is because of three reasons.

1. A cultural backlash against the glorification of war. Because "Honor and Glory" was the prevailing mood for the longest time, its only natural that we would begin to explore its opposite, to subvert the expected tropes and cliches.

2. We don't fight for beliefs as much anymore. You know who peddles the "Honor and Glory" myth nowadays? ISIS. When we go to war now, it is seldom about our religion or the fate of our nation. We fight for politics, or against nebulous foes. It is hard to see the honor and value in that sort of conflict.

3. Media. This was a major cause of change, actually. As photo journalism became viable, the images of War could be carried back to the common people. In the US, this happened around the Civil War, and the cultural baggage from that change has never truly left us. Without media as it is now, it would be harder to dispel the "Honor and Glory" myth. See Vietnam for just how powerful those images can be.

 

[conmag9]

I honestly can't think of a single good thing about war. Absolute best case scenario, it'll be used to stop some terrible injustice...but the only things bad enough to maybe justify a war are themselves either other wars or mass crimes of similar scope.

Pain, death, dehumanization, starvation, rape, mass destruction of property and economies (which leads to even more death and suffering long after the bullets stop flying), ideal conditions for disease...Any thought that war is glorious is almost certainly instilled through manipulation of troops by their superiors for morale and recruitment purposes. Or else it's the opinion of someone who isn't being put in the line of fire.

War SUCKS. And the more we do it, the better we get at it (especially with rapid weapon advancement) and the worse it's going to suck for all involved.