Warfare will never be this glorious ever again

t. Some faggot who played empire total war and thinks he's available expert

Empire total war is shit and you should feel bad for bringing it up

>oh boy stock footage with a a color filter and shitty ambient music!

Why is this piece of shit getting spammed so much lately? Kids these days are incapable of understanding concepts without being given a metaphorical laugh-track?

"War is sweet to those who have never tasted it"

so profound.. wow

He thought so, plebeian.

Jünger tasted it and liked it, I guess nobody sent him a saaaaad Youtube video with eery music.

so fucking crazy, being in mass hand to hand combat like that is unimaginable

true, I've been fascinated by war ever since I saw Platoon as a kid. I would probably get myself killed if I was ever in it

youtube.com/watch?v=2kEawLosZHk

youtube.com/watch?v=1zSowOS4Wyg

you're dumping tea in the harbor when you see this coming your way... what do u do???

Yep. Plus of course "Man we're starving and we haven't been laid in months... whoa look over there, those peasants look like they have bread and their girls look cute." ---> rape steal rape rape steal
He's right, though.

That probably serves for most of warfare in history.

>what are bayonets
>what are hangers, cutlasses, broadswords, and sabres
>what are cavalry skirmishes and cavalry charges

>Rommel
>Mccarthur

Both generals mate. Your average squaddie pretty much gets fucked if he tries to win valour.

They purposely stood close to each others precisely because of charges. In fact, there was no reason for musketeers to form blobs if not for being stronger in melee.

and yet the ruling class has been able to convince every generation since WWI that war is glorious and right.
my guess is it's just a meme and war was always dying a horrible death with your pants full of crap over totally fabricated reasons.

that hasn't been the case for ages, shows what you know about the real world, the only lot that adopt a glorified notion of war and seek to engage in it are muslamic rayguns and probably the chinese

no it's just some artsy unoriginal hipster that couldn't create something meaningful himself so he had to borrow from the worst war in history to give his "art" depth.

so did the mongol horde. sub-human psychos tend to do that.

>in WWI
learn to read

yeah sure Jamal. i remember seeing jay leno practically sucking of soldiers on his show. americans, chinese, mooslims are all fighting someone elses war and feeling proud about it.
inb4 muh 9/11

Jünger was not psychologically normal. The common human element of sadness is simply not to be found in his literary works. It's as if he amputated this part of himself, or somehow repressed it. The fact that such a psychologically exceptional individual kept coming back to the battlefield is not a validation of modern technological mass warfare.

why would I share your name?

turns out war sucks, and some edgelords like to glorify it

it's fun in a board game form

but of course killing human beings is something I personally would want to avoid if at all possible

This guy disagrees.

War is great for people with a taste for it, nothing more, nothing less.

ho-hoo! zing! go suck of your industrial military complex you fucking cuck

Complete bullshit. Read On the Marble Cliffs. It's one full novel of sadness.

I like Sherman's philosophy that war is hell so get out of the way and let me burn your fields and livestock already

>the eternal kraut

I'll thank you to respect my national defense if you please.

I wish you all the best :)

>Be 15
>Get conscripted
>Forced to march 10-15 miles a day, sometimes longer with a whip at your back.
>die of disease in your camp.

v glorious

Reminder that you were three times more likely to die from disease and malnutrition than you were to even be in actual fighting, let alone get "glory" from it.

well the peasants allowed this to happen to themselves, why should they complain?

nigga the fuck

>join or get your ass stabbed, farmboy

k then

this is very true, my family lost three men in a war in that era, and all were to disease outside of battle.

when you are the majority of a society and you don't challenge its organization when you are actually marginalized then you have no finger of blame to lay outside yourself

I have read it, and it is a prime example of the lack of sadness in his works. The death of Sunmyra and the lack of any mourning for him in the conventional sense is a case in point. The characters honour him in a macabre way by turning his head into a monument of sorts, but they do not grieve.

Well i found the entire book to be infused with sadness, specifically of the melancholic sort, so i can only strongly disagree with you.

while you're not wrong i don't think that's how it works in real life. you need an idea to rally around and organisation and shit like that. not to forget that they had propaganda back then as well and everybody thought that war was the way to go.

I think it's interesting that back then wars were mostly fought with armies that would march and then fight in large blobs according to the terrain instead of holding entire frontlines. The fact that the defensive position was hard to hold meant many times attack was the only solution and therefore to end the battle quickly rather than sitting in trenches for years without a clear end to war. Of course possibly a fuckton of men died in battles like Leipzig or wtv but that meant that entire campaigns were then maneuvers and soldiers went back to their families and life was mostly normal when these battles were done and diplomacy kicked in.

Valor in combat really meant something when you only had one grand battle to prove yourself in rather than always firing a couple shots at some Novorossiyan scouts, greet the morning artillery and then fire your own.

>defensive position was hard to hold meant many times attack was the only solution
Why ? Because of artillery ?

warfare was never glorious you absolute faggot

The Austrian grenadiers were sexy af

Was War better in the 1700s? Or is it all just a meme?

Seems like it was much better organized, two opposing armies fighting each other, at least some simbelance of "respect" or whatever on the battlefield, shitty muskets and cannons, no nightmare tier weapons like poison gas or flame throwers. As opposed to some gurilla group marching into a village and massacring women and children because they accepted food rations from the UN and are guilty of conspiring with capitalist imperialist or something. Yeah, I realize its still war and its fucking brutal, but it seems like it was the best case scenario.

Peasants literally did rise up all the time, it just turns out that having an entire class of society that does nothing but train for war and accumulate vast sums of money with which to hire mercenaries tends to mean that class can curbstomp most would-be revolutions. See Switzerland for a case where the peasants curbstomped the nobles.

Because the manpower did not exist to hold an entire border. Defensive lines weren't a thing on the strategic scale.

>implying a constantly reinforced social message of subordination and the lack of lords in Switzerland developed a peasant identity which was instead dominated by the burguers

if you're gonna act like a smug faggot at least know how to spell "eerie", retard

Are you retarded? So if five people broke into your house and raped you, you would have "no finger of blame to lay outside yourself"?

David Inouye, motherfucker

>"The sights were terrible," wrote one savant, "the sound of shots, shrieks of women and fathers, piles of bodies, a daughter being raped on the cadaver of her mother, the smell of blood, the groans of the wounded, the shouts of victors quarrelling about loot." The French finally rested, "sated by blood and gold, on top of a heap of dead".

>he doesn't realize we'll be commanding robot line battles in the near future.

Lots of those guys would have the runs.

Neither of them were generals at that point

Muh Tonkin Bay

Muh They hate our freedom

Muh WMD

He is right.

>White uniform in dirt, shit, blood, sweat in continental Europe
>Good

Early modern soldiers had a high mortality rate but there were many benefits to being in the army. These armies were made out of professional volunteers before conscription was implemented. Here is some information about the lives of the Swedish soldiers in the 17th century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroleans

For their service they were rewarded with a full fledged cottage where they lived in peacetime. Basic education such as literacy and maths and a food ration that was heavy in meat, fish, butter, peas and beer.

youtube.com/watch?v=k97nvOSBDnk

Those soldiers had massive balls.

ahhah like Veeky Forums wouldn't desert at the earliest opportunity

>ywn nobly stand for your rights wearing of the gray

WHY FUCKING LIVE?!

dude...like war is like...bad and stuff dude

Do reenactment cletus. It's very fun.

Already do that.

holy shit

I'm in NJ so I'm union but I really like the hats the confederates wear. The kepis suck ass in the summer.

Hardee is where it's at.

It's the main reason the Iron Brigade was most A E S T H E T I C unit in the Union Army outside of Zouaves.

I'm a slouch hat type of guy. I like the confederate planter hats a lot though.

learn to travel back in time.

>there was no reason for musketeers to form blobs if not for being stronger in melee

communication, volley fire, march discipline

>Nobody did logistics right so you were always starving
>implying on Veeky Forums

War is always glorious. Always. Even at it's worst. Beyond the pain and the suffering, lies god.
youtube.com/watch?v=TIQynsWpBpQ

Too bad the Austrians got their shit kicked in at almost every battle.

I'm not Jeff Mangum, so I don't have enough money build a time machine and I certainly do not have enough /mu/ autism to power it.

The only way I could ever travel back in time would be to steal it from Jeff or make a bargain with him to use it.

Hmmm... Maybe if I offer to go back in time to convince my Confederate ancestors to help him save Anne Frank by blowing up the train carrying her, he'll let me borrow it so I can relive/win the Battle of Gettysburg...

>glorious

This is how you can spot the edgelord reactionary who thinks that anyone living in his magical past was - for whatever reason - more "noble" or "honorable" than those living today, despite all the examples to the contrary.

Quality of living does not equal glory. It only means progress.

>Jünger tasted it and liked it, I guess nobody sent him a saaaaad Youtube video with eerIE music.

Thanks!

Are there really documented cases of soldiers having soiled their pants (defecation/urine)? The effects of disease have me wondering.

If you went into battle having not eaten in days, you probably won't shit yourself.

If you're attacked while eating dinner in camp, you probably will.

"Waaa waaa"all i read from your post try again

being a fat fuck addicted to comfort = honorable or noble

The ruling class used to also actually fight in the wars though; join the military, earn your glory, increase your standing. The nobility/upper classes had a reason to promote a romantic view of warfare and the military but then they also had an actual stake beyond nebulous political goals or power consolidation since their sons were out there and just as liable to get blown in two by a cannonball as Edward Peasantman.

Laugh and continue dumping tea because the BRA were a joke since Britain was a naval power, not a land one.

>warfare will never be this glorious ever again
that's good because retards won't be convinced going to war is a nice thing

Past was shittier in every aspect. People were more depressed, dirtier, uglier, shorter, poorer, you name it. Glorification of past is a form of escapism. Escapism is nothing brave or noble.

Why not train everyone like light infantry, then ? Because light infantry was easily overran by bayonet and cavalry charges.