Old wars vs. New wars

Old wars: Battles of two sides armies, consisting of: knights, archers, foot soldiers and so on. Weapons were basic, including: swords, arrows, axes, knives, maces, hammers, catapults and so on.
The two armies would collide on a battlefeild and fight man to man, or woman to man or whatever.
Once the king is dead usually the battle is over, the battlles lasted usually no more than a day to a week. somethimes (rarley) more......

New wars: Many armies, consisting of many different types confrontations, there are: fighter planes, tanks, foot soldeirs, marines(ships) and so on. Weapons include guns, tanks, cannons, missiles, grenades, nuclear bombs and so on.
There is no real close up fighting, soldiers shoot each other from as far possible range as possible.
Wars can last up to years.....

Well I personaly prefer Old style wars, mainly due to the fact that it took much more courage to run towards another army rather than to hide and try to kill your opponents without being seen.
Also In old time wars great warriors got the respect they deserved....and some are never forgotten.....

What about you?......

I like both types. I love the new type of warfare, as I'm into WWII and all that jazz. Gotta love the nukes and machine guns, etc. Old warfare is fun too, though. I love the whole medieval feel with swords, castles, and knights.

"We are the Knights Who Say Ni.
NI! NI! NI!"

Old all the way. There is no honour in today's warfare, no more code...

Mr U

I'm as usual, caught between two. Here's why:

Old: Honourable, epic in terms of numbers, feats and heights of human physiques, gloriousbut
Bloody, drawn-out, wasteful, lots of collateral damage to innocents, and the fact that defeat equals total annihilation. An ideal makes thousands if not millions of people die.

New: Efficient and tactical, reserved as last-resort events, Geneva Convention, international critique and focus on constant balance of power. Fought for points and ideals and only that (i.e. no execution of enemies or their families unless deserved) but
Hypocritical, impersonal and dishonourable; sometimes cold. Largely unfair fights, no one battle becomes as easy to remember, almost no heroes of the battlefield of note.

Bloody, drawn-out, wasteful, lots of collateral damage to innocents, and the fact that defeat equals total annihilation. An ideal makes thousands if not millions of people die.


Oh.. I thought those were good things. Not all war-lords were brutal, Mac. Most of them were just looking to expand their territory and needed those civilians.
Ideals? The western world believes they have the only correct ideals, and other people die because of this. I see no difference there.

I believe that tactics no longer play an important role. In the old days, each battlefield was carefully selected, and the men were put up to assure minimum casualties on their side, while assuring maximum on the other side. Now, however, warfare has turned into guerilla fighting. There is no real armed conflict. It's more like, we'll blow up the terrorist leader so they can blow up our president.
There is no honour in guerilla. It's shooting people when they are sleeping or not paying attention.

If you look at the actual warlords and the way they ruled, you'll see little difference in the way of ruling. If warlords were cruel to their people, a revolt would quickly dispose of him. A true Warlord in those days was a man of many talents: A genius on the battlefield, merciful to his people, uncorruptable by the power vested in him.

Today, a President has joint chiefs of staff to assure tactics are superior, and lies cover up mistakes made in government. There is no honour, sense of duty or anything relevant what so ever.
Freedom, honour, independence, things people used to die for, have been reduced to empty, hollow words.

Mr U

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Old all the way. There is no honour in today's warfare, no more code...

Mr U

Thats exactly what I mean, who remebers soldiers who died in the wars of today?? But who can forget the brave warriors who led great armies into great battles and their skill allowed them to endure through many battles and acheive unforgettable victories?? We may not know them by name but we know that at that time there was a great leader who won so many victories......in the effects of their wars have lived on through the centuries.....

Originally posted by tHe aRcHeItEcT
Thats exactly what I mean, who remebers soldiers who died in the wars of today??

Vietnam Wall, Arlington National Cemetery, Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial - And those are just for America.

Well, damn, I don't enjoy wars all that much, so I guess I'd prefer new - that is, if by new you mean modern warfare. I think wars have become more efficent and less people die now. It takes more time, but only to assure that less people are killed. I don't think there was ever really an honour in killing opposing soldiers. Mass amounts of innocents were killed. Heroism, to the best of my knowledge, was when death was avoided - either by directly saving people or by finishing the war quicker. I don't think that fighting with a sword and looking in your enemies eyes before killing him makes it more honourable than if you would have shot him with a gun from far away. Old wars are cooler for stories, but basically, I think we've made advancement in wars, if that makes any sense...

I think heroic warriors still get the respect they deserve. They just aren't idealised for their fighting ability like they once apparantely were. Which if anything is a good thing, but even if it wasn't, it would never have been worth sacrificing more lives.

Originally posted by freeyourmind

I think heroic warriors still get the respect they deserve. They just aren't idealised for their fighting ability like they once apparantely were. Which if anything is a good thing, but even if it wasn't, it would never have been worth sacrificing more lives.

Yes they get respect but none can become legends from todays wars, maybe a few but not like old times, nowadays too many soldiers die from bombs and so on before they even shoot a bullet, such a waste.....

I think the new wars are the "best" though war is never good....

old style wars. were much better

at least then there whas honour. real fighting man vs man (or woman vs woman/ man vs woman)

in today's war, it's a pussy fight. just shoot a rocket from a distance like a coward. not brave enough to face your enemy

i vote for old

Lets combine the two. We use old school weapons, with new school tactics. And we do it in the future. Hey, I think I have the idea for another fan-fic. Man, Im a genious.

yeah if we can believe the movie's we will be fighting with light sabers :D

Why have war at all? In the future, there will be too many people. From the 1900's our population has actually quadrupled, but that's not a reason to kill people over disagreements. How about if we solve problems with words and a general empathy for each other's problems?

Then we can all die a slow and painful death through starvation! Lol

Well, I think it was in 2001 we passed from the age of Pisces to the age of Aquarius. Picses was Jesus' sun sign, but more importantly, Pisces was an age of community, music, and wisdom beyond years. Aquarius is more a sign of world prosper and helping make the world a better place. One of the downfalls of Aquarius is choosing the benefit of all over the benefit of those closest to your heart. I think this should be an intersting age where the world will get better and prosper through real love of your fellow men and real peace for all people. One can only hope.