>modern "battles" are two groups of maybe a dozen

>>3365418
>We gotta go back
You gotta go back to Call of Duty

autistic teen walts are pure fremdscham

File: DvG_front_image_400x400.jpg (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>3365418
Each nation should assemble 100,000 of its finest men, and when one nation's interests conflict with another's, each nation's 100,000 fight a battle on a plain with pre-gunpowder weaponry.

>>3365434

then what was the point of all the investment and innovation into our war tech tree if we don't even use it?

You're talking about a huge nerf to Western civilization's military strength.

>>3365418
This is how republics fight, cautiously and without high morale.

>it is yet another thread where brainlets want to stand in line, wear faggy colorful outfits and shoot muzzle loaders towards another line of faggots in garnish uniforms

>>3365434
I hope this becomes a thing in whatever trippy, absurd post modern future that arises in the coming decades.

>>3365418
And when one of these two groups are Americans, they don't ever try to hit the enemies as US infantry main purpose nowdays is to act as a "bait and hook" force until air support arrives to kill

>>3365520
Degenerate detected.

>>3365446
The Arabians have proved that technology is secondary to strategy, tactics, and discipline. Western civilization would still remain victorious due to these factors.

>people should risk their lives when they don't have to
>muh honor muh tradition
Arbitrary

>>3365534
It's funny how the murrifat infantry doctrine is designed to provide maximum amount of bomb orders to military-industrial complex.

>>3365774
t. numale bugman

>>3365774
The only people who die in war are those whom God decides is no better than a murderer

>>3365418
Why risk human lives when you can use drones and unmanned vehicles instead?

File: police-politique.jpg (777KB, 1170x805px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1170x805px

>>3365462
t.brainlet

>>3365418
Why risk two groups when you can have a champion battle?

>>3365848
the french revolutionary state was not a republic in the sense that its leaders were chosen by force rather than contract or vote. In this sense it became an oligarchy, rather than the modern constitutional republics which employ rule of many, which includes democracies

>>3365860

Because the fanbase still hate eachother after the fight, and will often fight over the outcome of the match anyway.

>>3365873
Even if I don't disagree with you on that point, there's still the fact that Athens did better militarily as a democracy than as an oligarchy, because it encourages the commoners to go further for the city which they were joint stakeholders in.
The idea that democracies and republics are somehow "bad" at war compared to oligarchies (do I have to bring up the Punic Wars?) and dictatorship has no basis in historical fact.
Now that I say that, Sparta has been called an oligarchy by many, but it still won the Peloponnesian War against the Athenian democracy. I guess there's no state that's perfect for waging war. Even the Spartans eventually lost to the Thebans, who followed a laxer form of oligarchy, while the arch-oligarchical Nazis lost to the American democracy and the USSR, which is in your definition another oligarchy.

>>3365902
Kingdoms and their evolution -Empires- are best for fighting wars. Not like the british of today, but like a Roman Emperor or the British Kings during Pax Britannica

>>3365932
How so? While the Roman Republic was able to topple Carthage, the rival its people considered their equal in strength, the Empire was unable to defeat their long time enemies in Persia.
When the Empires of Europe fought each other in the First World War, the result was a long, inefficient slaughter where the side with the most republican sentiment (not to say that Germany had its own democratic traditions) eventually came out on top. As I said, there is no perfect system that makes a country or people better at war, there's only economic, social, technological and personal factors that let certain nations have the advantage at certain times.

>>3365462
This sounds like a quote, is it?

>>3365434
Then the losing side gets asshurt and kills the otherside with guns and conquers their land anyways

>>3365825
Genuinly curious do you have any sources for that. I know the M.I.C. would mess around politics to start conflicts but actually affecting doctrine is something I haven't heard before.

>>3366114
Isn't it obvious? Murrifat infantry shoots at the general direction of the enemy to pin them and then calls in an airstrike done by F-35 with 10million USD price tag bomb

>>3366163
"Isn't it obvious" is not a source dude.

>get shot from a mile away, pulled away from front line, get patched up and quite possibly fully recover
or
>get head caved in, stabbed through the chest, run over by a charging horse, trampled by hundreds of men, or impaled on a spear
gee op i can't choose

>>3365767
Every time a western/eastern country has fought against an Arabian military they have won.

Guerrilas aren't armies

>>3365418
And die in slow and shitty wars? No fucking way.

>>3366202
this

even going back to late 19th century warfare would be terrible

>>3366163
It turns out bombing the living shit out of people when they're pinned down is really, really effective, but these are the Americans we're talking about, so they can't do anything right. They're not allowed to

>>3366181
>Every time a western/eastern country has fought against an Arabian military they have won.

That's complete and utter bullshit. If it had any semblance of truth to it, Arabians would still live in Arabia and not across all of North Africa, Middle East and a bit of Southern Asia.

They are where they are because they won a boatload of wars against Romans, Persians, Egyptians, Turks and whatnot. Your hate boner for them can't change history.

>>3366074
this lol

File: mycenaeans and trojans.jpg (378KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 800x587px

>ywn have some poet autistically describe your acts of valor and violence in gory hunting metaphors
Why live?

>>3366225
What are you even saying?

You cited examples were the technology was in equal ground if not above western countries

Every time when a western country with higher technology fought an eastern society they utterly destroyed them.

Strategies can´t beat a nuke
The opium war?

Arabians only live in Arabia today because west does not actually want the land, beside Israel it does not have anything the west want it.

The Oil was secured, they tried to create stability but the desert niggers continue on killing everything and mostly themselves

It would actually cost too much to western countries to colonization there, and today it is not something acceptable anymore

So accept, middle east will be forever a shit hole, Unless Israel of course