New > old

Are the soldiers of the modern age superior to older soldiers in every way? (assuming the old soldiers had the same weapons systems and there where no advanced joint ops... just 15 dudes vs 15 dudes)

youtube.com/watch?v=wYnCrLRZJIc

I know there where life soldiers in days of old, but how hard did they train? Should we be naming old soldiers after newer ones to honor them?

I imagine if you pitted 100 soldiers from the Civil War against 100 modern US Army infantry in hand-to-hand combat (i.e. no shooting, bayonets only), the Civil War infantrymen could overpower their modern counterparts because they had more experiences in actually fighting hand-to-hand (as opposed to just training for it), were trained to fight together as a cohesive formation, and their weapons were designed with it in mind, whereas the modern infantryman's rifle is design with use in hand-to-hand as an afterthought.

Probably would have had higher test, also,

Yes. People back then were skinny little Manlets. Soldiers nowadays train better. And actually want to fight unlike those poor bastards who were forced to. A modern marine could easily take out 10 soldiers from the civil warr

Women are serving openly in modern armies
so no

You posted a photo of a GRU detachment squad in Afghanistan.
They were by far the hardest motherfuckers you will ever heard of.
The only thing that even comes close is SOME of the SEAL teams.
Vanilla Muhreens are fucking sissies to them.

Except those skinny manlets fought in hand-to-hand combat on a regular basis. They also would have drilled with it more often because they knew their lives depended on it. Most modern soldiers go through one round of intensive bayonet training (if they're lucky, some branches have dropped it as a requirement altogether) without the expectation of ever having to use it.

utter bullshit

modern men have far more muscular strength than 200 years ago. FAR more nutrition embedded to their system, FAR more calories and fat to create lifelong hardier muscles.

civil war cucks would be BTFO like gimps

I love colonial/civil war era stuff but lol if you think the physical standards would come even close to modern day stuff

Fighting/nutrition today is down to a science. I don't think the civil war dude would stand a chance.

ITT: People who think sick and starving soldiers have never won a battle against a superior forc-

Victorian men who were engaged in manual labour (miners, farmers, navvies etc.) regularly had a daily intake of 4000-5000 calories, roughly twice that of modern men. Not everyone in the 19th century were rheumatic street urchins. Levels of physical activity have never been lower in the West, they were much more physically robust (by necessity) back then.

Krav Maga>19th century bayonet charge

>People back then were skinny little Manlets.
>muh muscles
They could walk longer distance with heavier package, endure harsher conditions, suffer serious wounds and still capable of fighting. We'd pay a fortune to have such soldiers nowadays instead of these roid faggots.

Yeah, sure they could. The average fulltime soldier of now is superior to a knight in every single way.

They quite literally carried less kit in WW2 than today, and going back further just compounds on that fact. Knights had squires and other bitch boys to carry their shit

I'm pretty sure that someone raised from birth to participate in hand to hand combat is going to beat someone who has only done a few courses of unarmed combat training.

Why would they? Same way what's her name, Rhonda Rheddit, gets her ass kicked by a featherweight part-time MMA fighter, a knight will get shat on by a muhreen.

>raised from birth
Meme, you'd get a better education in an inner city environment of the modern day on how to fight than some gay manuals you read as a kid

Modern men actually have declining testosterone and weaker grip strength than their forefathers.

I'm quite sure I am the only one here who has actually done military service. Yea, the kit weights more, but the backpacks we have today are very good. The difference between a bad backpack and a good one are tremendous. Moreover, we have cars and other vehicles today. In ancient times soldiers from Rome marched all the way to Northern Europe, and no, they did not use horses.

Undoubtedly, especially those who serve in special forces are in good shape. But normal infantrymen, no they are soft and weak. Not necessarily physically weak, but weak from their minds. They are modern men, from soft and feminine world, and I have hard time thinking that they could somehow beat Roman legion soldiers in hand-to-hand combat. Legionnaires butchered millions of Gauls in hand-to-hand combat. They were battle hardened and used to death, blood and extreme violence. They were from harsh and brutal world we can not comprehend.

Medieval aristocracy/landed gentry
>well fed
>physically active
>years of training

Marine
>brought up on processed food
>did a bit of sport at high school
>12 weeks of training, (very little of which relates to unarmed combat)

I'm sure a knight would get his ass kicked in a fire fight against a marine, but we're comparing apples and oranges here, either way.

They carried more during WW1.
Anthropometry shows they were shorter and stronger, their bones were tougher, and they were generally more resistant.
We changed much more during the last century than ever before. Not in the good sense, we're actually weaker.

>I'm quite sure I am the only one here who has actually done military service
Don't presume
>Legionnaires butchered millions of Gauls in hand-to-hand combat
Meme, hundreds of thousands, maybe

But they weren't soldiers. Actual soldiers did much less physical training, in fact, much less training of any type.

Modern soldiers can march farther carrying a heavier load than any historical force. Soldiers in Afghanistan frequently hump over 100 pounds of gear on patrol, which is far more than any soldier carried before this time. The Romans only marched with 50-60 pounds of equipment.

Being accustomed to death/violence and growing up in a harsh environment doesn't make one a better fighter. Just look at the Middle East; across Iraq people have lived for years with war and violence yet the Iraqi army shat their pants when ISIS rolled in. Then ISIS (who you'd think would be most used to death, blood etc) would no doubt get their shit kicked in by a Western military from the 'soft and feminine' world.

Deyz alphas an shieet u cuck. Gun take ur womyn and ur gun do nuthin about it lil cuck boi.

>in b4 technology is the only factor in our superiority
>not nutrition
>not vaccines
>not healthcare in general

We're like almost a foot taller than we were a thousand years.

Modern soldiers probably are, on average, in better physical shape than their 19th century counterparts. But the difference isn't as large as some think.

>The Romans only marched with 50-60 pounds of equipment
It's certainly less, but they had to carry it much, much further.

>But they weren't soldiers.
Average adult male height in Medieval England was around 5'7" (actually dipped during 15th-17th centuries), what's the average now, 5'9"?

You are right, and I agree with you. But I am not talking about modern weapons. Being accustomed to bloodshed does not by any means make you a better soldier. I believe it can be even a bad thing.

But from what I understood, we were talking about hand-to-hand combat. 10 vs 10 hand to hand combat to death is brutal and extremely violent. Modern people are not used to crush bones or rip eyes of their enemies out. And that leads to hesitation: they may know what they are supposed to do, but it is just so inhuman violence that they can not do it. That is why I bet that legionnaires would win. They would not hesitate to kill.

According to Plutarch's Lives it was one million dead and one million as slaves.

And had to construct an entire goddamn fort at the end of every day's march.

That still isn't plural

>Modern soldiers can march farther carrying a heavier load than any historical force
Lol no, the basic package of a grognard was around 30kg without the gun and god knows what he wanted to bring with him, and they had to walk all the way to the battlefields, sometimes thousands of kilometers. Absolutely no one could do that nowadays.
WW1 package was 25kg without food water and ammo, and without the gun. They also had to walk all day long.

Fair point user