Benny
03-12-2005, 09:56 PM
Many times I questioned myself if a infantry soldier fighting in the Napoleonic wars or during the American Civil War was braver than a soldier fighting in a modern war (considering "modern wars" as the ones fought since the beginning of WWII)?
On one side, you have a battlefield that required soldiers to march or stand in a solid formation, armed only with a musket and a bayonet, facing enemy artillery, cavalry, fighting face to face with enemy infantry, with no proper medical aid in case of injury, subject to strict discipline, bad logistics, required to obey order blindly, fearing officers from a superior social background and, many times, without any basic education, simply ignoring the political or national interests that dictated them to fight and die on the battlefield.
On the other side, on a modern war, we have soldiers fighting with the help of technology, killing and dying without seeing the enemy, politically motivated, counting with good logistics and medical assistance in case of injury, not ignoring the motives of the war that they are fighting, etc, etc.
Or is it that maybe the courage required from an infantry soldier isn't much different nowadays than that that was required 200 years ago?
Or could it be that, afterall, and in spite of technological advances introduced on the modern battlefield, the basic human requirements that make a good infantry soldier, and the difficulties which they face haven't changed that much since them?
Of course that one can question if the ACW or WWI (just to mention some) shouldn't be considered modern wars, where technology and industrial power played a fundamental role (long range rifles instead of muskets, machine guns, modern artillery, tanks and airplanes were introduced before WWII), but let's just say, without pretending to be profound on this matter, that I consider these to be technological wars fought with obsolete tactics.
Myself, If I was given the oportunity to chose, I would chose a modern battlefield.
Anyway, I hope some of you consider this an interesting topic.
On one side, you have a battlefield that required soldiers to march or stand in a solid formation, armed only with a musket and a bayonet, facing enemy artillery, cavalry, fighting face to face with enemy infantry, with no proper medical aid in case of injury, subject to strict discipline, bad logistics, required to obey order blindly, fearing officers from a superior social background and, many times, without any basic education, simply ignoring the political or national interests that dictated them to fight and die on the battlefield.
On the other side, on a modern war, we have soldiers fighting with the help of technology, killing and dying without seeing the enemy, politically motivated, counting with good logistics and medical assistance in case of injury, not ignoring the motives of the war that they are fighting, etc, etc.
Or is it that maybe the courage required from an infantry soldier isn't much different nowadays than that that was required 200 years ago?
Or could it be that, afterall, and in spite of technological advances introduced on the modern battlefield, the basic human requirements that make a good infantry soldier, and the difficulties which they face haven't changed that much since them?
Of course that one can question if the ACW or WWI (just to mention some) shouldn't be considered modern wars, where technology and industrial power played a fundamental role (long range rifles instead of muskets, machine guns, modern artillery, tanks and airplanes were introduced before WWII), but let's just say, without pretending to be profound on this matter, that I consider these to be technological wars fought with obsolete tactics.
Myself, If I was given the oportunity to chose, I would chose a modern battlefield.
Anyway, I hope some of you consider this an interesting topic.