NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #6

[Themiclesia]

I've noticed that coaches, knights-in-shining-armour, and swords are still used in ceremonial occasions in Britain. Why are other outdated military equipment, such as bronzes and chariots not used?

Those are a bit too primitive and well outdate Britain's era of military dominance, which those traditions originate from.

But they aren't used in China either, where both have been used in historical times (despite the communist regime).

[Imperializt Russia]

Those are a bit too primitive and well outdate Britain's era of military dominance, which those traditions originate from.

But they aren't used in China either, where both have been used in historical times (despite the communist regime).

That would presumably glorify an ideology not sponsored by the Chinese government of today.

[Kouralia]

I've noticed that coaches, knights-in-shining-armour, and swords are still used in ceremonial occasions in Britain. Why are other outdated military equipment, such as bronzes and chariots not used?

Knights in shining armour?

Which knights? Do you mean the Household Cavalry? As Para said.

Additionally... a) the carriages either 1) are for multiple people to travel in comfort in, which one cannot do in a chariot, or 2) replaced the Queen riding a horse as she got older and was less able to do it. b) the bronze age ended in Britain roughly 2,200 years ago. Before there was even such a thing even marginally conceivable as a British state.

[Bratislavskaya]

Those are a bit too primitive and well outdate Britain's era of military dominance, which those traditions originate from.

But they aren't used in China either, where both have been used in historical times (despite the communist regime).

The semi-communist regime doesn't want military traditions from an autocracy.

[Themiclesia]

I've noticed that coaches, knights-in-shining-armour, and swords are still used in ceremonial occasions in Britain. Why are other outdated military equipment, such as bronzes and chariots not used?

Knights in shining armour?

Which knights? Do you mean the Household Cavalry? As Para said.

Additionally... a) the carriages either 1) are for multiple people to travel in comfort in, which one cannot do in a chariot, or 2) replaced the Queen riding a horse as she got older and was less able to do it. b) the bronze age ended in Britain roughly 2,200 years ago. Before there was even such a thing even marginally conceivable as a British state.

*Sigh*

Why are humans evolving away from good conduct in battle towards mass destruction?

[Kouralia]

RE: Swords. Swords were issued to active combat duty cavalrymen and were used in combat by cavalrymen in the British Army as recently as a century ago, and by other European powers ~70 years ago. They also represent in most people's minds an irrevocable symbol of a soldier, and for those with a bit of knowledge and induction into the field - that of an Officer, or a wealthy soldier. So, they carry them now on parade for the same reason they carried them on parade fifty, a hundred, a hundred and fifty, two hundred years ago - it is either the symbolic (or principal) weapon of the cavalryman or the Officer.

Knights in shining armour?

Which knights? Do you mean the Household Cavalry? As Para said.

Additionally... a) the carriages either 1) are for multiple people to travel in comfort in, which one cannot do in a chariot, or 2) replaced the Queen riding a horse as she got older and was less able to do it. b) the bronze age ended in Britain roughly 2,200 years ago. Before there was even such a thing even marginally conceivable as a British state.

*Sigh*

Why are humans evolving away from good conduct in battle towards mass destruction?

Good conduct in battle used to involve massacring everything, then, once you reached the enemy's baggage train/camp followers, raping the oxen, stealing the women and slaughtering the treasure.

[The Akasha Colony]

Those are a bit too primitive and well outdate Britain's era of military dominance, which those traditions originate from.

But they aren't used in China either, where both have been used in historical times (despite the communist regime).

Because generally cultures tend to fixate on a few specific, romanticized eras. In Britain, this is the age of chivalry and the Victorian era, when British influence was at its height. It is not the Roman era, when England was dominated by a foreign power. The common association of chariots with the Roman Empire, and in turn the Roman Empire with authoritarian regimes, probably isn't very welcome in mainstream political circles either.

It helps that these eras were recent enough for working examples from the period to still be around and in a functional state. Carriages from the Victorian era aren't nearly as old as chariots from the bronze era. Nor are swords and armor from the Medieval period.

As for China, the government has a rather mixed relationship with history. On the one hand, playing up China's greatness is very good for fostering nationalist pride, but the government has to be careful to continue to project an image of modernity and camaraderie with the people, while portraying past governments as corrupt and decadent. There's a very hard push especially now under Xi Jinping to combat the image that has slowly arisen of party officials becoming increasingly corrupt and concerned with personal material gain, with big houses and expensive cars. Riding around in chariots and parading old relics generally doesn't help.

[Horizont]

Knights in shining armour?

Which knights? Do you mean the Household Cavalry? As Para said.

Additionally... a) the carriages either 1) are for multiple people to travel in comfort in, which one cannot do in a chariot, or 2) replaced the Queen riding a horse as she got older and was less able to do it. b) the bronze age ended in Britain roughly 2,200 years ago. Before there was even such a thing even marginally conceivable as a British state.

*Sigh*

Why are humans evolving away from good conduct in battle towards mass destruction?

The point of conflicts is to win them.
'Good conduct' often doesn't given you an advantage over your enemies. You want an advantage over your enemies.
You ditch the idea of good conduct for superior tactics and strategy which happen to be mass destruction.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Knights in shining armour?

Which knights? Do you mean the Household Cavalry? As Para said.

Additionally... a) the carriages either 1) are for multiple people to travel in comfort in, which one cannot do in a chariot, or 2) replaced the Queen riding a horse as she got older and was less able to do it. b) the bronze age ended in Britain roughly 2,200 years ago. Before there was even such a thing even marginally conceivable as a British state.

*Sigh*

Why are humans evolving away from good conduct in battle towards mass destruction?

There is no such thing as "good conduct in battle". It's battle - organized, planned, state-sanctioned killing. You either win, or you lose, and people would rather actually win wars than be nice to the people their society has deemed worthy of collective death.
Besides, good conduct in battle, as Kour has pointed out, is a historical mirage. It never existed. We never moved away from it - we as a species were never there to begin with.

[Imperializt Russia]

Knights in shining armour?

Which knights? Do you mean the Household Cavalry? As Para said.

Additionally... a) the carriages either 1) are for multiple people to travel in comfort in, which one cannot do in a chariot, or 2) replaced the Queen riding a horse as she got older and was less able to do it. b) the bronze age ended in Britain roughly 2,200 years ago. Before there was even such a thing even marginally conceivable as a British state.

*Sigh*

Why are humans evolving away from good conduct in battle towards mass destruction?

Because "mass destruction" is efficient and achieves objectives in a timely fashion.

[Themiclesia]

*Sigh*

Why are humans evolving away from good conduct in battle towards mass destruction?

There is no such thing as "good conduct in battle". It's battle - organized, planned, state-sanctioned killing. You either win, or you lose, and people would rather actually win wars than be nice to the people their society has deemed worthy of collective death.
Besides, good conduct in battle, as Kour has pointed out, is a historical mirage. It never existed. We never moved away from it - we as a species were never there to begin with.

It may be true, what you say, but there are numerous exceptions, especially prominently remembered in Chinese history --

An archer shoots and misses, and is ready to shoot a second arrow. The opposing archer says, "I haven't even shot yet. It is shameful for you to shoot twice before I get to shoot." The first then permits the latter to shoot, and dies from this shot.

The Duke Hsiang of the state of Sung told his soldiers, "Do not capture old men, and do not hurt those already injured." Consequently, he lost the battle, but then was remembered with admiration for the next two millennia.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

There is no such thing as "good conduct in battle". It's battle - organized, planned, state-sanctioned killing. You either win, or you lose, and people would rather actually win wars than be nice to the people their society has deemed worthy of collective death.
Besides, good conduct in battle, as Kour has pointed out, is a historical mirage. It never existed. We never moved away from it - we as a species were never there to begin with.

It may be true, what you say, but there are numerous exceptions, especially prominently remembered in Chinese history --

An archer shoots and misses, and is ready to shoot a second arrow. The opposing archer says, "I haven't even shot yet. It is shameful for you to shoot twice before I get to shoot." The first then permits the latter to shoot, and dies from this shot.

That's not good conduct; that's objectively being an idiot. Hence, why he died.
Also, these are probably more like folktales than any kind of accurate historical depiction of real events.

The Duke Hsiang of the state of Sung told his soldiers, "Do not capture old men, and do not hurt those already injured."

And did those soldiers follow those orders? That's kind of the important part.
And those are generally part of the SOP for most forces anyways. Old dudes aren't worth much as combatants, and if people are already injured, your job's done for you.

[New Tyran]

Fucking blasphemy.

[Themiclesia]

It may be true, what you say, but there are numerous exceptions, especially prominently remembered in Chinese history --

An archer shoots and misses, and is ready to shoot a second arrow. The opposing archer says, "I haven't even shot yet. It is shameful for you to shoot twice before I get to shoot." The first then permits the latter to shoot, and dies from this shot.

That's not good conduct; that's objectively being an idiot. Hence, why he died.
Also, these are probably more like folktales than any kind of accurate historical depiction of real events.

The Duke Hsiang of the state of Sung told his soldiers, "Do not capture old men, and do not hurt those already injured."

And did those soldiers follow those orders? That's kind of the important part.
And those are generally part of the SOP for most forces anyways. Old dudes aren't worth much as combatants, and if people are already injured, your job's done for you.

I'll concede that these may not be literally true, or are abstractions of more complicated situations (such as hearing each other from two ends of an arrow's range). But the soldiers did obey the orders. More to the story was regard for fairness. The duke refused to attack the enemy as they were crossing the river, and again when the battle formation was not quite ready, but only engaged when the enemy was ready.

[Padnak]

All this talk of swords

[Kouralia]

There is no such thing as "good conduct in battle". It's battle - organized, planned, state-sanctioned killing. You either win, or you lose, and people would rather actually win wars than be nice to the people their society has deemed worthy of collective death.
Besides, good conduct in battle, as Kour has pointed out, is a historical mirage. It never existed. We never moved away from it - we as a species were never there to begin with.

It may be true, what you say, but there are numerous exceptions, especially prominently remembered in Chinese history --

An archer shoots and misses, and is ready to shoot a second arrow. The opposing archer says, "I haven't even shot yet. It is shameful for you to shoot twice before I get to shoot." The first then permits the latter to shoot, and dies from this shot.

The Duke Hsiang of the state of Sung told his soldiers, "Do not capture old men, and do not hurt those already injured."

So what?

The first archer was more of an Arse-er, because he was a stupid arsehole who was useless at his job. And many people have throughout history said 'do not hurt the injured PoWs'. Including, you know, every single Western Modern Military.

Without a doubt, modern warfare is more moral than in ages past. I'd personally contend that there is good conduct in war. Good conduct is doing nothing more brutal than that which is required to achieve victory in a timely fashion with minimised friendly casualties. Whether that be shelling civilian occupied areas, opening people's bellies viciously with bayonets or even simply 'destroying someone's house and livelihood because it was occupied by enemies', it is all good conduct. It ceases to be so, and becomes legitimately criticise-able (not just 'boo-hoo, some Israeli people blew up a house' or 'WAAAAAH! Look at all these Ukro!Twats and their shelling of fortifications in an occupied city. Why can't they go in and die by machine gun fire, there's civvies there you barbarians!') only when it is evidently in excess of what will secure victory - brutality for the sake of brutality, if you will.

[Themiclesia]

It may be true, what you say, but there are numerous exceptions, especially prominently remembered in Chinese history --

An archer shoots and misses, and is ready to shoot a second arrow. The opposing archer says, "I haven't even shot yet. It is shameful for you to shoot twice before I get to shoot." The first then permits the latter to shoot, and dies from this shot.

The Duke Hsiang of the state of Sung told his soldiers, "Do not capture old men, and do not hurt those already injured."

So what?

The first archer was more of an Arse-er, because he was a stupid arsehole who was useless at his job. And many people have throughout history said 'do not hurt the injured PoWs'. Including, you know, every single Western Modern Military.

This was referring to when the injured is not yet incapacitated. So, perhaps in this sense, many of the battles fought during the Spring and Autumn period in China were actually large-scale duels.

Without a doubt, modern warfare is more moral than in ages past. I'd personally contend that there is good conduct in war. Good conduct is doing nothing more brutal than that which is required to achieve victory in a timely fashion with minimised friendly casualties. Whether that be shelling civilian occupied areas, opening people's bellies viciously with bayonets or even simply 'destroying someone's house and livelihood because it was occupied by enemies', it is all good conduct. It ceases to be so, and becomes legitimately criticise-able (not just 'boo-hoo, some Israeli people blew up a house' or 'WAAAAAH! Look at all these Ukro!Twats and their shelling of fortifications in an occupied city. Why can't they go in and die by machine gun fire, there's civvies there you barbarians!') only when it is evidently in excess of what will secure victory - brutality for the sake of brutality, if you will.

It's a willingness to believe that there's more to the world than states and victory.

[Kouralia]

So what?

The first archer was more of an Arse-er, because he was a stupid arsehole who was useless at his job. And many people have throughout history said 'do not hurt the injured PoWs'. Including, you know, every single Western Modern Military.

Without a doubt, modern warfare is more moral than in ages past. I'd personally contend that there is good conduct in war. Good conduct is doing nothing more brutal than that which is required to achieve victory in a timely fashion with minimised friendly casualties. Whether that be shelling civilian occupied areas, opening people's bellies viciously with bayonets or even simply 'destroying someone's house and livelihood because it was occupied by enemies', it is all good conduct. It ceases to be so, and becomes legitimately criticise-able (not just 'boo-hoo, some Israeli people blew up a house' or 'WAAAAAH! Look at all these Ukro!Twats and their shelling of fortifications in an occupied city. Why can't they go in and die by machine gun fire, there's civvies there you barbarians!') only when it is evidently in excess of what will secure victory - brutality for the sake of brutality, if you will.

It's a willingness to believe that there's more to the world than states and victory.

What is?

Of course there's a belief that there's more to the world than states and victory. You have noticed that there has been great restraint by nations in nearly every war since WWII?

Britain could've nuked Argentina in '82 to teach the twats not to invade British soil. The US could've nuked Iraq in the Gulf War(s - either of them would've done). Ukraine could just flatten Donetsk with artillery fire unending for weeks and months.

(pretty much) No one does this, because (pretty much) everyone understands that the world has people in it too.

[San-Silvacian]

I wish I had a whimsical and pretty painted view of war.

[Themiclesia]

It's a willingness to believe that there's more to the world than states and victory.

What is?

Of course there's a belief that there's more to the world than states and victory. You have noticed that there has been great restraint by nations in nearly every war since WWII?

So I have, and to be honest I wasn't taking the comparison all the way up to the present. I was talking until about the world wars.

Britain could've nuked Argentina in '82 to teach the twats not to invade British soil. The US could've nuked Iraq in the Gulf War(s - either of them would've done). Ukraine could just flatten Donetsk with artillery fire unending for weeks and months.

(pretty much) No one does this, because (pretty much) everyone understands that the world has people in it too.

Both acts would have incurred lots of international disapproval, which may or may not be a severe enough reason to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.

[Padnak]

I'd say that the north African theatre of ww2 is a good showcase of "good conduct", both sides acted very professionally and in many areas quite chivalrously, be it in the treatment of POWs or not shelling hostile convoys carrying mostly wounded men. The "good conduct" didn't compromise either sides operating abilities and combat was still brutally efficient, just not excessively so, as it was on the eastern front for example

[San-Silvacian]

I'd say that the north African theatre of ww2 is a good showcase of "good conduct", both sides acted very professionally and in many areas quite chivalrously, be it in the treatment of POWs or not shelling hostile convoys carrying mostly wounded men. The "good conduct" didn't compromise either sides operating abilities and combat was still brutally efficient, just not excessively so, as it was on the eastern front for example

Thats because both were civilized Western Europeans.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

That's not good conduct; that's objectively being an idiot. Hence, why he died.
Also, these are probably more like folktales than any kind of accurate historical depiction of real events.

And did those soldiers follow those orders? That's kind of the important part.
And those are generally part of the SOP for most forces anyways. Old dudes aren't worth much as combatants, and if people are already injured, your job's done for you.

I'll concede that these may not be literally true, or are abstractions of more complicated situations (such as hearing each other from two ends of an arrow's range).

Yeah, no kidding.

But the soldiers did obey the orders.

Probably because if they didn't, they'd be punished in a way you'd find pretty arbitrary and uncivilized, ironically enough.

More to the story was regard for fairness.

Fairness in war gets you and your comrades killed, as your archer story proved for me. No participant in armed conflict ever ended that conflict by being fair. they ended it by overwhelming their enemy with their overpowering strength as quickly and effectively as possible. Period.
That's what ends war, and prevents the exact kind of pointless wastage of life that "fairness on the battlefield" results in.

The duke refused to attack the enemy as they were crossing the river, and again when the battle formation was not quite ready, but only engaged when the enemy was ready.

How many of his own men do you think died in an extremely pointless and avoidable way because this "duke" had a hard-on for "fairness"? How many of his men who died in that battle would've agreed that their deaths were worth letting the enemy have a "fair" shot at them? How many extra widows did that create? how many extra orphans did "fairness" result in, there? A hundred? A thousand? Is all that extra loss, bloodshed, and grief worth being "fair"?
Unfairness in war ends war quickly and with a minimum of bloodshed.

I'd say that the north African theatre of ww2 is a good showcase of "good conduct", both sides acted very professionally and in many areas quite chivalrously, be it in the treatment of POWs or not shelling hostile convoys carrying mostly wounded men. The "good conduct" didn't compromise either sides operating abilities and combat was still brutally efficient, just not excessively so, as it was on the eastern front for example

Thats because both were civilized Western Europeans.

Right, the civilized, Western European Nazis would never do anything mean-spirited or unfair to people they didn't like - especially helpless civilians in their own country. Neither would the British ever do anything unsporting to their opponents.
Think about what you're saying for a second.

I'd say that the north African theatre of ww2 is a good showcase of "good conduct", both sides acted very professionally and in many areas quite chivalrously, be it in the treatment of POWs or not shelling hostile convoys carrying mostly wounded men. The "good conduct" didn't compromise either sides operating abilities and combat was still brutally efficient, just not excessively so, as it was on the eastern front for example

[/quote]
But that phase of the war didn't end with a "fair" resolution.
It ended with Monty and Patton ganging up and beating the living shit out of Rommel and the Italians until they couldn't fight anymore.
Hence my point.

[Gallia-]

I'd say that the north African theatre of ww2 is a good showcase of "good conduct", both sides acted very professionally and in many areas quite chivalrously, be it in the treatment of POWs or not shelling hostile convoys carrying mostly wounded men. The "good conduct" didn't compromise either sides operating abilities and combat was still brutally efficient, just not excessively so, as it was on the eastern front for example

Thats because both were civilized Western Europeans.

Italy and Germany are not European. They're African and Asiatic, respectively.

[The Akasha Colony]

It may be true, what you say, but there are numerous exceptions, especially prominently remembered in Chinese history --

An archer shoots and misses, and is ready to shoot a second arrow. The opposing archer says, "I haven't even shot yet. It is shameful for you to shoot twice before I get to shoot." The first then permits the latter to shoot, and dies from this shot.

The Duke Hsiang of the state of Sung told his soldiers, "Do not capture old men, and do not hurt those already injured." Consequently, he lost the battle, but then was remembered with admiration for the next two millennia.

And these exceptions are the reason why "good conduct" was never common.

It's a willingness to believe that there's more to the world than states and victory.

And what in the end did Duke Xiang of Song gain, or the allegorical first archer? Did his fame and respect forestall the annexation of Song by the eventually victorious Qin? Mao had some rather choice words to describe the actions of his "respected" forebear.

I'm willing to guess there are a lot of people in the duke's army who in hindsight might've wanted to see their families again. Had he attacked at the river, his opponent would have likely retreated fairly quickly in disorganization, reducing casualties on both sides compared to fighting a large, drawn-out battle with the full force of both armies. And if the first archer had nocked and fired his second shot, the outcome also would have been the same: one dead man either way.

Indeed, modern armies are far more careful about their casualties and the "morality" of their actions than in the past. It used to be considered justified to wage a war with thousands of casualties over religion, to slaughter villages and towns wholesale for "apostasy." Or even for a noble's honor, or his perceived claim to a throne or additional title. It used to be expected that a victorious army would sack a city, enslave the men, rape the women, and salt the fields. Carthage "stands" as a monument to Roman "virtuousness."