When in the Western World did soldiery become an honorable profession?

>>1827819
Rise of nationalism and professional armies.

>>1827819
When soldiers started fighting to defend ideas instead of leaders

>>1827819
When wealthy people started becoming Infantry.

>>1827824
spooky

>>1827819
>When in the Western World did soldiery become an honorable profession?

When the states became organized enough to carry out propaganda.

I knew some guys from my country who were in Iraq an they are absolute scum.

File: DUDE TURKS LMAO.jpg (2MB, 3092x1828px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3092x1828px

>>1827819
>For most of history, soldier was synonymous with rapist and looter

What?

For most of history, in Europe at least, being a soldier (particularly a cavalryman) has always been something honourable and admirable. Whether we're talking Hoplites, knights, or line infantry, the idea of fighting for king and country, or for god, or even for money, has always been heavily romanticised.

I mean, for the lower aristocracy, specifically the knightly class, for centuries, war was a source of wealth and status, it was something they spent their lives training for, it was something they reveled in and celebrated, it was made into sport and show.

The idea of soldiers all being rapists and looters and war being an awful, brutal mess of blood and corpses is very much a 20th century one, particularly post-WW1 and post-Vietnam (which, yes, Europe wasn't involved in, but it coincided with the 60s pacifist anti-establishment culture, and because of mass media, the world had a good view of it).

It always was. Ever hear of the Iliad or the Old Testament?

>>1828175
>The idea of soldiers all being rapists and looters and war being an awful, brutal mess of blood and corpses is very much a 20th century one
Time for you to read Greek drama.

>>1828194
the Greeks were the original war glorifires

>>1828194
>Time for you to read Greek drama.

Oh yeah sure there are always some examples of people making soldiers out to be horrible people, but that's more a counter-culture thing, the general current of thought within society, from classical Greece to WW1 has most often been that soldiery is an honourable and noble profession.

In classical Greek society, even outside Laconia, taking part in war was seen as an honourable thing, and the heroes of war were celebrated above all others.

>>1827819
It was always a big honor to be an officer. Obviously the lowest tier soldiers were canon fodder, but that always had some chance of looting.

>>1827819
Only YOUR soldiers were honorable because they'd mainly rape and pillage abroad and prevent others from doing so at home. The meme of putting yourself in others' shoes didn't begin before enlightenment.

>>1828175
>The idea of soldiers all being rapists and looters and war being an awful, brutal mess of blood and corpses is very much a 20th century one
Wrong. Refer to 17th century literature for example.

Soldiers being described as scoundrels and is nothing new. It was not an honest profession and armies have always recruited from the dregs of society.

Keep in mind: the same does not apply to the military leaders of course.

>>1827819
>For most of history, soldier was synonymous with rapist and looter
Hindu caste system has five levels:
1. Priests and scholars
2. Warriors and nobles
3. Farmers, Artisans and traders
4. Service classes
5. Untouchables

Ancient Celtic society had nearly the same stratification:

1. Nobility and Druids
2. Warriors
3. Farmers, artisans, etc.
Etc. etc. etc.

The ruling classes have always been warriors.

They have always been an honorable profession.

whew lad

We got some serious 21st century revisionism going on in this fucking thread.

NEWSFLASH

Every King ever was a warrior.

Power comes from a sword, long before Mao thought it came from a gun.

Nobody became a fucking King because he was a nice guy who treated the serfs well.

The warrior class has always been at the top o society.

The first thing a civilization needs is to protect itself from other civilizations that may attack it.

>>1827819
Seriously kys

Your selection bias is amazing and its seriously endangering to people u know

kys my man

kys

>>1828447
If we're talking about knightly classes, housecarls, etc. which means professional "warriors" - those were indeed considered honourable and they were revered. However, soldiers are something different. From the 13th - 18th century, when warfare was mostly in the hands of mercenaries, i.e. "soldiers" who fought for their pay, it was different. These were by no means seen as honourable and they were not highly regarded. It was a profession for the dregs of society. Only the commanders were honourable men.

>>1828440
>Wrong. Refer to 17th century literature for example.

Ok

"This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

File: Pluenderung_der_Judengasse_1614.jpg (3MB, 1768x2364px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1768x2364px

>>1828465
>Every King ever was a warrior.

But he was a king. This has nothing to do with the esteem the rank-and-file were held in by:

The aristocracy
The merchants
The working poor

Different societies at different times viewed their 'soldier's' differently, and the type of soldier they were viewing was different too. The Citizen-Soldiers of the ancient polis were viewed differently than the mercenary scum of Renaissance Italy.

I believe it is accurate to say that, where armies were allowed to loot, rape and pillage to supply themselves, soldiering was viewed in a more negative light. Once Europeans started to field standing armies of soldiers motivated by nationalistic propaganda, the profession gained more esteem.

>>1828494
Do you think this means a pikeman had some kind of standing in society, or that the english citizenry wanted solders to take winter quarters in their homes?

>>1828494
I told you to look at 17th century literature, which e.g. in the case of Grimmelshausen's Simplicissimus describes in great detail soldiers being rapists and looters thus completely contradicting your claim that this idea was a modern invention. I didn't tell you to look for a singular text that does not do that because that is completely irrelevant to the argument.

>>1828519
This thread's about the public perception of soldiers in history.

Shakespeare's plays more accurately represent public consciousness at the time (at least in England) than do journals of history written by perhaps far more educated men.

The idea might not be a modern invention, as few really are, but only with WW1 did it supplant the concept of war being glorious in the mainstream public mind.

>>1828539
You literally said that the idea of soldiers being scoundrels is a 20th century invention and this is nonsense. Throughout history there has been the notion of soldiers being scoundrels, simply because that's what they mostly were. There are various historical accounts which refer to them as such. The idea that a singular piece with a propagandistic dimension is representative of public opinion is nonsense. People weren't stupid, they knew what kinds of people the armies were composed of.

>>1828194
Greeks understood the dichotomy though. Ares represented the negatives of war (bloodlust, rape, looting) but still Athena represented the virtues and nobility of war.

>>1828175

>or even for money

Oh yes, for most of history, Mercenaries have ALWAYS been romanticized!

They've NEVER been seen as literal demons who are more likely to rape and pillage your own people as they are to kill the people you actually hired them to fight!

>>1828190

Ever hear of the Thirty Year's War?

>>1828175
For most of history in Europe post-roman empire soldiers were usually officers or cavalrymen from aristocracy thus it was honourable amongst other aristocracy or they were mercenaries or levies.

>The idea of soldiers all being rapists and looters and war being an awful, brutal mess of blood and corpses is very much a 20th century one
>What is 30 years war

File: William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg (908KB, 2364x3000px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 2364x3000px

>>1828175
>The idea of soldiers all being rapists and looters and war being an awful, brutal mess of blood and corpses is very much a 20th century one

"You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!"

>>1827819
When the strength of nations became more permanent. Before they were "rapists/looters" because nations back then die off within couple generations.

File: Mongols in Iraq.jpg (198KB, 816x1024px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 816x1024px

Mongols always ruin the "Maybe soldiers aren't so bad" debate

>>1829116
Yeah, but those are Americans. European soldiers were much better behaved and more civilized

>>1829116
Point of order.

Sherman thought that war was hell.

He hanged soldiers that raped or murdered.

File: Counquest_of_Jeusalem_(1099).jpg (494KB, 1254x720px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1254x720px

>>1829914

>"In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared"

>>1829921

He also went about making the war as hellish as possible in the attempt to prove him monumentally stupid idea that "Bad wars end faster"

>>1827819
Do you know nothing of Rome?

>>1827824
>When soldiers started fighting to defend ideas instead of leaders

So since at least 2400 BC in Mesopotamia?

>>1827819

Soldiers are still thought of as rapists, but American/European soldiers are assumed to be above that. In things such as "unwatchable", the shock isn't that soldiers are raping someone, but that EUROPEAN soldiers are raping someone.

Soldiers in general are assumed to be rapists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-B2b_C1wqA

>>1828175
No, being an officer or professional soldier was a noble thing. Grunts and conscripts were regarded as the scum they were.

File: Soviet takes the military oath.jpg (46KB, 472x709px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 472x709px

Late 19th century

Invention of photography

Allowed everyone to see how cute and sexy soldiers are

>>1827824
"no"

>>1831331

>professional soldier

No such thing

>>1827819
WWI and especially WWII

>>1827819
In the past soldiers all marched in groups under the watchful eyes of their officers.

Later soldiers were usually only supervised by an NCO a few foxholes away, they could waste ammunition then withdraw if they wanted with little suspicion, maybee even frag the NCO, so they had to be properly motivated. Accusing them of being rapists would only cause resentment and insubordination. During training they have the hubris taken out of them, but then when their performance is up to standard they are given respect again, in this way being a good soldier becomes the source of their pride.

File: Prussians.png (3MB, 1169x1165px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1169x1165px

>>1831996

>>1832075

Wait, wait, wait, you think because soldiers are under LESS supervision they're MORE moral?

Are you actually retarded?

>>1829897

Mongolian warriors were very well respected in their own society

>>1832075
Not OP but no you retard. The point is they become less, so the military has to use other means to encourage helpful behavior.

File: 95eb399581b5604b722e72bad538b0de.jpg (32KB, 500x302px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x302px

>>1827819
>For most of history, soldier was synonymous with rapist and looter,
>No honorable warriors/soldiers or stories about their exploits and how they were so not assholes never existed in the ancient western world.
>but now is looked upon as a necessary profession for the continuation of a free society.
It never wasn't looked upon as that
>>1828175
>The idea of soldiers all being rapists and looters and war being an awful, brutal mess of blood and corpses is very much a 20th century one,
War was always viewed as being generally shit but alongside that were ideals of just /heroic wars and heroes.

>>1836708

>Still falling for the Sparta meme

>>1828435
"Begin before enlightenment?" Look at the current political/government situation in the U.S. and tell me, when exactly did enlightenment begin?

>>1833827
>>1836319
Apparently you didn't read the last part where I explicitly explained how the military "encouraged helpful behavior".

>so they had to be properly motivated.

>Accusing them of being rapists would only cause resentment and insubordination.

>During training they have the hubris taken out of them, but then when their performance is up to standard they are given respect again, in this way being a good soldier becomes the source of their pride.

>>1837288
I didn't fall for the meme and I know the history, if anything, the pic I posted helps prove my point. If you want a better reference or example, maybe the Illiad and Odyessy would be better

>>1837332

Again, you're calling for the self-control of lower class men, rather than the supervision of actually educated men, to prevent war-rapes