Glorious War VS War is Hell
- Thread starter Willinium
- Start date
Seriously though, A Song Of Fire & Ice (the books specifically) does a decent effort of showing what medieval warfare was like to the average person by focusing on the nobility. A lot of the nobles think its all fun and games, for the most part think they will just be taken prisoner & possibly ransomed if they loose but if they win songs will be sung of them for thousands of years, where the ordinary soldiers die horribly unremembered and the common farmer sees his crops looted and burned, his daughter raped and himself probably killed.
How many soldiers died in the war of the five kings? What real difference would it make that there was a different king sitting on the Iron Throne at the end?
As a commoner in real life I don't want to live in a world like that.
...you know, I was going to make a joke that there's only Glory to be found in warfare if you happen to be a Space Marine in the Warhammer 40k universe, but even then a vast majority of the literature I've read for 40k still depict war as being (often literally, given Chaos) hell, even for the glorious Space Marines.
So... uhhh... yeah. War sucks. It's always sucked. There's certainly been some good reasons for wars (and some bloody horrible reasons) but even with good reasons it's still a terrible atrocity that results in enormous casualties both mentally and physically for both sides involved.
So... uhhh... yeah. War sucks. It's always sucked. There's certainly been some good reasons for wars (and some bloody horrible reasons) but even with good reasons it's still a terrible atrocity that results in enormous casualties both mentally and physically for both sides involved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's all well and good as long as you agree with the cause.Willinium said:
I, however, want a theocracy. Are you SURE you want that to be an "honorable cause"? Because I bet you really don't.
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.
William Tecumseh Sherman said:
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.aegix drakan said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mfecane
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 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.
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.
I assume our understanding is deeply rooted in the greekcoroman understanding of the conceptThaluikhain said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh yeah, I remember that from Extra History. Shaka was kind of a freakin' asshole. XDerttheking said:
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.
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.
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.cleric of the order said:
Unusually, he'd be involved in the fighting himself, though.
This poem sums it up perfectly:
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.
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.
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.
I meant that he was the prefect living example of the Homeric ideal.Thaluikhain said:
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.
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.
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.
In his case, yes, he'd been brought up with it since he was a teen, he knew little else.cleric of the order said:
I meant that people following his example could have other reasons for doing so.
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.cleric of the order said:
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.