Was war glorious before the advent of World War 1 weapons?

File: grr.jpg (112KB, 772x817px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 772x817px

>>2219919
Some would say it still is.

>>2219919
>le modern brutal war meme

Europoors just remember WW1 because for about 100 years after the defeat of Napoleon there was no war between great power coalitions, and instead they could all enjoy small wars where they were mostly killing millions of poorly equipped brown and yellow people. Then they actually had to fight a real war again and cried about it.

>>2219981

>No great war between great powers

Wrong

>>2219919
No one was allowed to say war is bad before that.

>>2219919
Yes. Any other opinion is revisionist drivel

>>2220090
> great power coalitions

are you literally illiterate?

>>2219919
The same mentality was still there, in WWI. We only get the "muh six million, muh trenches" line from Perfidious Britain, who is a sniveling crybaby to this day. Germany obviously fared way worse in loss of life, and power, but stood firm and without complaint, until the end. If you look at German accounts, compared to British, they're totally different, in-terms of how the men thought and what felt about warfare.

>>2220098

I'm phone posting so it's hard. What difference does multiple powers make in terms of average battlefield experience?

Even in the Iliad we get the sense that war can bring great glory, and or horrible pointless loss.

>>2219981

this pretty much

>>2220140
t. autistic teenage walt

No. War was never glorious. War was walking for months while being malnourished until you die from diarrhea. But states were MOSTLY able to maintain the fiction that it was glorious before ww1.

>>2219981
>for about 100 years after the defeat of Napoleon there was no war between great power coalitions
Crimea

>>2220140
Let me guess, the only accounts you have read are (excerpts from) In Stahlgewittern and a couple of British war poems?

>>2220282

I think people misunderstand the idea. War itself is hell, but it is still glorious to put yourself forward to defend your people, whether you live or die.

>>2219919
You say that as your regiment is getting mowed down by a shower of canister.

Very glorious, assuming you weren't a frenchmen in 1870. Or a brit stationed in the colonies. Or anyone stationed in the colonies, really. Or line infantry before 1789, and even then only the french line infantry had fun until around 1810.

The impression I always got was that war was shitty until you got into the GROOVE, and then war was amazing and filled you with terrible joy.

>>2220488
irrelevant

>>2220488
coalitions, plural. There it was just three great powers vs Russia.

>>2219981

Once again showing that /his/ knows fuck all about history

>>2220488
russias army was a wreck in this war.
so it was a bitter war for russia, not so much so in the west.

File: 733bd24e933532033147619c6a020d15.jpg (102KB, 650x492px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 650x492px

>>2219919
Yup it was super glorious

>>2221604
it easier to look at the other aspects of war with lower casualty rate.

>>2221578
There were a few pretty grim battles for the coalition, and there was a lot of ravage by disease. I guess there wasn't the scale of slaughter of WWI though so there's still some sense of naivete and romance about mistakes such as the charge of the light brigade.

It would be interesting to know how the public came to feel about the destruction of Elphinstone's army, whether they later came to feel about it with a similar sense of romantic sacrifice as the charge and also various disasters in the Sudan.

File: great power.png (66KB, 1136x774px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1136x774px

>>2221444
>three great powers

The Ottomans had long ceased being one

File: dix_tryptichon.jpg (2MB, 3505x2317px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3505x2317px

>>2220140
Pro-tip: Ernst Juenger was not the only German to experience WW1.