Martial courage

[Sidhae]

How do you feel about the relation between technological progress and martial courage? Has technological advancement increased or decreased the need for individual courage in war?

---

In times when war was still a brutal and personal up-close business, individual courage was certainly a necessity. Hacking and slashing at a screaming enraged enemy just inches away doing the same to you was no doubt a task where great courage was necessary. For this reason, those that could kill from afar (archers, crossbowmen, etc., respectively) were often despised as weaker and lacking in courage. This was especially true in Medieval Europe, where men of noble birth were explicitly forbidden from using "cowardly" weapons of commoners like bows in warfare, the tradition dating as far back as Homeric Greece, where the use of bow was regarded as contrary to the heroism of melee combat, although other cultures did not necessarily share the same sentiment. This also meant that storming the walls of a fortress would bring almost certain death for the first attackers.

With the advent of firearms, the necessity for individual courage relatively decreased in favour of collective courage and discipline, but the individual element would still remain. Battles between line infantry still implied a virtual certainty of being gunned down for those in the first lines, demanding great individual courage, with the prospect of receiving a permanently-crippling injury only adding to that.

Automatic firearms and heavy artillery would bring more demand for individual courage - going over the top now meant almost certain death or injury, and even those staying in the trenches were nowhere near safety. However, most casualties were now being inflicted by pounding enemy positions with artillery fire.

However, the emergence of mobile warfare would mean relatively less danger of impending death. Constantly moving and using cover would reduce enemy chances of scoring a hit. Advances in technology that would allow to hit the enemy in complete impunity (ballistic and cruise missiles, drone aircraft, etc.) would only contribute to that, although they also brought the constant threat of sudden death without the ability to retaliate for those on the receiving end.

---

So basically, while courage is still an essential virtue for a warrior, do you think the bravery of soldiers in the past was put to the test more than today or not?

[The Humanist Federation]

There is nothing virtuous about war. No matter how much technology progresses, people will die horribly and ultimately for nothing.

[Sidhae]

There is nothing virtuous about war. No matter how much technology progresses, people will die horribly and ultimately for nothing.

Well, that's not the issue here. What I'm asking is whether modern warfare is more or less demanding on men in terms of individual courage than wars of the past.

[Vandoosa]

I do believe the warriors of old might have been a lot braver.. Though I like our modern stuff more because stuff goes boom...

[Bombadil]

There is nothing virtuous about war. No matter how much technology progresses, people will die horribly and ultimately for nothing.

Well, that's not the issue here. What I'm asking is whether modern warfare is more or less demanding on men in terms of individual courage than wars of the past.

Potentially no.. it might take incredible courage to stand alone among your peers and say 'no, this is wrong' given the remoteness of death will likely lead to less compunction in inflicting it.

At some point, being sent into battle on pain of death if you didn't wasn't courage per se but lack of choice.

[Tubbsalot]

Well a huge part of modern warfare is minimising the risk to friendly combatants - for political reasons if nothing else - which is necessarily going to mean less call for courageous actions. Obviously that's not to say they no longer exist.

[Immoren]

How do you feel about the relation between technological progress and martial courage? Has technological advancement increased or decreased the need for individual courage in war?

---

In times when war was still a brutal and personal up-close business, individual courage was certainly a necessity. Hacking and slashing at a screaming enraged enemy just inches away doing the same to you was no doubt a task where great courage was necessary. For this reason, those that could kill from afar (archers, crossbowmen, etc., respectively) were often despised as weaker and lacking in courage. This was especially true in Medieval Europe, where men of noble birth were explicitly forbidden from using "cowardly" weapons of commoners like bows in warfare, the tradition dating as far back as Homeric Greece, where the use of bow was regarded as contrary to the heroism of melee combat, although other cultures did not necessarily share the same sentiment. This also meant that storming the walls of a fortress would bring almost certain death for the first attackers.

With the advent of firearms, the necessity for individual courage relatively decreased in favour of collective courage and discipline, but the individual element would still remain. Battles between line infantry still implied a virtual certainty of being gunned down for those in the first lines, demanding great individual courage, with the prospect of receiving a permanently-crippling injury only adding to that.

Automatic firearms and heavy artillery would bring more demand for individual courage - going over the top now meant almost certain death or injury, and even those staying in the trenches were nowhere near safety. However, most casualties were now being inflicted by pounding enemy positions with artillery fire.

However, the emergence of mobile warfare would mean relatively less danger of impending death. Constantly moving and using cover would reduce enemy chances of scoring a hit. Advances in technology that would allow to hit the enemy in complete impunity (ballistic and cruise missiles, drone aircraft, etc.) would only contribute to that, although they also brought the constant threat of sudden death without the ability to retaliate for those on the receiving end.

---

So basically, while courage is still an essential virtue for a warrior, do you think the bravery of soldiers in the past was put to the test more than today or not?

Me thinks modern warfare requires more courage than ever.

[Tubbsalot]

Me thinks modern warfare requires more courage than ever.

Why?

I get that it's courageous to patrol in an area where you might be blown up at any moment, but is that really more courageous than intentionally getting right up next to five people who are trying to stab your face entirely off your body?

[Vandoosa]

Me thinks modern warfare requires more courage than ever.

Why?

I get that it's courageous to patrol in an area where you might be blown up at any moment, but is that really more courageous than intentionally getting right up next to five people who are trying to stab your face entirely off your body?

Yea this dude got a point.. the thought of getting hacked to death with rusty dull axes and beat with flails seems a little more scary and painful.. getting blown up you won't have time to say ouch..

[Immoren]

Me thinks modern warfare requires more courage than ever.

Why?

I get that it's courageous to patrol in an area where you might be blown up at any moment, but is that really more courageous than intentionally getting right up next to five people who are trying to stab your face entirely off your body?

Uh. That last part of sentence is part of modern warfare...

[Tubbsalot]

Uh. That last part of sentence is part of modern warfare...

...only in the most tenuous sense. If that's happening, you've failed at modern warfare.

Unless you are the insurgent, in which case, you're not really doing modern warfare.

[Dracoria]

Hard to quantify, partially due to courage being in different areas now. Combat today is much more through guerilla and surprise tactics, long-ranged and explosive devices that may come anywhere rather than organized line battles. Chances of survival are overall much higher, but death and maiming may come at any second, whether due to an IED, a sniper's bullet, or a missile hitting your barracks while you sleep. I'd say rules of engagement should make things easier, but they only help so long as the other guys are the ones following them.

Things may be different for some troops in a few more years due to an increase in automation and remote operation, but for the foreseeable future we'll still need the infantryman out on the front line, exposed to numerous ways to die.

[Draconikus]

I reckon that land wars of today require more personal fortitude than at any other time in history.
The modern tactic emphasises numerous small units, to maximise mobility and flexibility. A soldier in the field has generally only ten or so others to rely on, and is highly unlikely to spot the enemy before being attacked.
However, I only apply that sentiment to soldiers in the field. Artillerymen, as a general rule, do not get close to the fighting, and so require less fortitude to do their jobs than regular infantry - however, they are still at risk of attack, and as such need _some_ nerve to carry on. "Push-button" soldiers, on the other hand, require absolutely no martial prowess or fortitude. Certainly, those ones in command of nuclear missiles require nerves of steel, but that is for different reasons than soldiers in the field. Lesser forms of ballistic missile, however...

But that only deals with land based troops, which is grossly unfair to the other services, who _also_ display great bravery. Let's look at them, also.

Serving in the Navy, I would say, requires slightly less bravery than it did in the 17th and 18th centuries - however, that is due more to the fact that we no longer fear 'falling of the world', or running into a reef or some such - remove the modern navigational aids, and the demands of the service remain mostly unchanged from its inception. The notable exception to this rule is submarine warfare. That is due to the vast array of psychological traumas forced upon sailors in those conditions.

Serving in the Air Force - unfortunately I would be forced to admit they mostly require more fortitude than any other serviceman, barring submariners and WMD commanders. Not only do they have to contest with opponents in three dimensions, with attack coming from literally any direction, but, if they survive being shot out of the sky, they are then helpless to defend themselves until they hit the ground, and then they are put into a similar position as a ground soldier, except with fewer allies to help them, and less equipment. With regards to a comparison to previous generations of the Air Force, I'd say it likely demands more of airmen today, as they are expected to survive losing an air duel, evade their ground opponents, and make their own way back to allied ground.

For the purposes of this analysis, I am assuming each service uses only the means traditionally associated with it. So Fleet Air Arm would come under 'Air Force', despite also having some naval concerns, etc.

For the

[Call to power]

I don't really think you can quite quantify things when people are fighting for their lives. Wiping out the French aristocracy with your longbow and charging a line of longbow-men (as a Frenchman no less) are both hitting the top of existential terror.

Same goes for getting shot at by a load of Afghans or whatever. It all requires the same courage and I'd say its more about fighting for your life.

This was especially true in Medieval Europe, where men of noble birth were explicitly forbidden from using "cowardly" weapons of commoners like bows in warfare

Who told you this?

There is nothing virtuous about war. No matter how much technology progresses, people will die horribly and ultimately for nothing.

Bollocks, fighting for something however fleeting is always something virtuous.

I get that it's courageous to patrol in an area where you might be blown up at any moment, but is that really more courageous than intentionally getting right up next to five people who are trying to stab your face entirely off your body?

You are aware that Bayonets are still used in warfare, yes? The example that immediately comes to mind is the Falklands war with Paras charging into Argentine lines.

[Tubbsalot]

You are aware that Bayonets are still used in warfare, yes?

Apparently not. I'll just take your word for it; replace my opinions with CtP's.

[The Republics of America]

Just going to war shows courage.

[The Humanist Federation]

There is nothing virtuous about war. No matter how much technology progresses, people will die horribly and ultimately for nothing.

Well, that's not the issue here. What I'm asking is whether modern warfare is more or less demanding on men in terms of individual courage than wars of the past.

Killing a man with a rifle is just as demanding as it would be with a sword.

[Wallonochia]

I don't really think you can quite quantify things when people are fighting for their lives. Wiping out the French aristocracy with your longbow and charging a line of longbow-men (as a Frenchman no less) are both hitting the top of existential terror.

Same goes for getting shot at by a load of Afghans or whatever. It all requires the same courage and I'd say its more about fighting for your life.

Yeah, pretty much anytime you and another person are doing their damnedest to kill each other it's pretty terrifying, regardless of the means. Unless you can develop some sort of objective measurement of terror (I propose the unit be called a big brass ball) this is a pretty meaningless discussion.

[Sidhae]

Well, that's not the issue here. What I'm asking is whether modern warfare is more or less demanding on men in terms of individual courage than wars of the past.

Killing a man with a rifle is just as demanding as it would be with a sword.

However, you cannot kill a man with a sword by surprise. Not if you are fighting in a battle along with many other men, at least. The enemy knows you are coming and is prepared to face you, and the result is determined by sheer physical prowess and swordsmanship skill, whereas killing a man with a rifle does not necessarily require great physical strength, or even great marksmanship skill, any shot being potentially lethal (unlike a weak or unskilled blow with a sword).

Hence I think swordsmen of old required greater individual courage than modern soldiers, although there are clearly more aspects to modern warfare that even out the difference.

[Neo Art]

I'm not sure if Modern Warfare takes a particular level of courage. I mean, they're just humans.

That Halo guy though is pretty cool. Eh kills aliens, and doesn't afraid of anything!

[The Humanist Federation]

Killing a man with a rifle is just as demanding as it would be with a sword.

However, you cannot kill a man with a sword by surprise. Not if you are fighting in a battle along with many other men, at least. The enemy knows you are coming and is prepared to face you, and the result is determined by sheer physical prowess and swordsmanship skill, whereas killing a man with a rifle does not necessarily require great physical strength, or even great marksmanship skill, any shot being potentially lethal (unlike a weak or unskilled blow with a sword).

Hence I think swordsmen of old required greater individual courage than modern soldiers, although there are clearly more aspects to modern warfare that even out the difference.

Either way you are taking a life. Either way you have to stand there and watch as life slips away from his body. Killing is killing.

[Fnordgasm 5]

Killing a man with a rifle is just as demanding as it would be with a sword.

However, you cannot kill a man with a sword by surprise. Not if you are fighting in a battle along with many other men, at least. The enemy knows you are coming and is prepared to face you, and the result is determined by sheer physical prowess and swordsmanship skill, whereas killing a man with a rifle does not necessarily require great physical strength, or even great marksmanship skill, any shot being potentially lethal (unlike a weak or unskilled blow with a sword).

Hence I think swordsmen of old required greater individual courage than modern soldiers, although there are clearly more aspects to modern warfare that even out the difference.

It may not take as much skill to shoot a man than to face him armed combat and kill him does that really make the man with the sword braver? A man can be confidant of his skill with a blade and that may give him courage however no amount of skill can prevent a man being shot as soon as he breaks cover in a gunfight.

[CTALNH]

How do you feel about the relation between technological progress and martial courage? Has technological advancement increased or decreased the need for individual courage in war?

---

In times when war was still a brutal and personal up-close business, individual courage was certainly a necessity. Hacking and slashing at a screaming enraged enemy just inches away doing the same to you was no doubt a task where great courage was necessary. For this reason, those that could kill from afar (archers, crossbowmen, etc., respectively) were often despised as weaker and lacking in courage. This was especially true in Medieval Europe, where men of noble birth were explicitly forbidden from using "cowardly" weapons of commoners like bows in warfare, the tradition dating as far back as Homeric Greece, where the use of bow was regarded as contrary to the heroism of melee combat, although other cultures did not necessarily share the same sentiment. This also meant that storming the walls of a fortress would bring almost certain death for the first attackers.

With the advent of firearms, the necessity for individual courage relatively decreased in favour of collective courage and discipline, but the individual element would still remain. Battles between line infantry still implied a virtual certainty of being gunned down for those in the first lines, demanding great individual courage, with the prospect of receiving a permanently-crippling injury only adding to that.

Automatic firearms and heavy artillery would bring more demand for individual courage - going over the top now meant almost certain death or injury, and even those staying in the trenches were nowhere near safety. However, most casualties were now being inflicted by pounding enemy positions with artillery fire.

However, the emergence of mobile warfare would mean relatively less danger of impending death. Constantly moving and using cover would reduce enemy chances of scoring a hit. Advances in technology that would allow to hit the enemy in complete impunity (ballistic and cruise missiles, drone aircraft, etc.) would only contribute to that, although they also brought the constant threat of sudden death without the ability to retaliate for those on the receiving end.

---

So basically, while courage is still an essential virtue for a warrior, do you think the bravery of soldiers in the past was put to the test more than today or not?

Nothings changed except on how that courage is used...

In ancient times you needed courage to charge in battle.

Now you need the same courage to pull the trigger.

[Selegnia]

I think that the last "real" war the world suffered was WW2, and soldiers then needed even more courage than in ancient wars due to the brutal amount of casualties. Even in Vietnam, your guys needed to be very brave to carry on. Most wars now consist on bombing 3rd world countries to hell, and I suppose that Jimmy the pilot doesn't need to be as brave as little Fritz and little Vladimir when they were killing each other with bayonets in a ruined building back in 1942.

[Serrland]

I don't mean to be that guy who brings Aristotle into it, but it's important to look at what we mean by courage or bravery.

[...]The man, then, who faces and who fears the right things and from the right motive, in the right way and from the right time, and who feels confidence under the corresponding conditions, is brave; for the brave man feels and acts according to the merits of the case and in whatever way the rule directs.[...]

With that in mind I wouldn't say that modern soldiers are any less courageous/brave than their earlier counterparts. A brave modern soldier would fulfill all of those conditions just as well as a swordsman or spearman.