Until World War I soldiers were considered as knights, brave and heroic men who fight and it was a glory to defeat the opponent. Why did the people change their views? They were affected before the world war too, and the war itself also wasn't a man-to-man fight from the 18th century . Any ideas or theories?
2006-09-06 18:16:29 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
That's because we women-folk didn't see most of the carnage that war brings until WWI. That's when pictures of the actual battles, not just their aftermath, became available. and it's also when the carnage became worse, with mustard gas, more terrible weapons, such as machine guns, tanks, etc. That's also when the survival rate became a little higher--before, you either survived or you didn't--those who were horribly maimed didn't make it, so there wasn't a constant reminder of what they had been through.
2006-09-07 03:58:13 · answer #1 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
War used to be a romantic notion... But this was during an entirely different era. War was romanticized as a notion, and given that it was a chivalristic, tidy affair, it was easy enough to do. Even bloody wars had a sense of organization, such as the Greek and Roman armies.The key word here is "chivalry"... And here is where the history lesson begins.
Chivalristic war was considered to be the status quo up until the calamitous 14th century. It was expected out of both sides, but when the English invented the longbow. Then suddenly everything changed. Shooting down opponents from a distance became the new status quo. But the French couldn't get in gear with it. They still had the romantic mounted warriors in mind for war, where things were tidier and on a much more "chivalristic" character. This is one of the reasons why, in spite of vastly outnumbering the English, that the French did so poorly in the 100 Years War. It wasn't until the third stage of the war that they started to get their acts in gear and change their tactics.
Formal warfare did come back into play to some degree. The British were especially fond of this system. So when the Americans went with guerilla-style warfare, they were of course quite shocked. This caused a massive amount of casualties, of course.... Even in the Civil War, there was some notion of romance in war, especially given that it was a civil war, with brothers fighting brothers... But in an era with guns, mass killings, and casualty numbers unheard of in ages without either of these, the idea finally managed to basically die out.
2006-09-07 01:39:16 · answer #2 · answered by Meredia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me, those that won in a fight was a glory are those who fought in the course of protecting someone or something dear to them. I do not know much, but I think that the knights fought in order to protect their family, friends and of course their country land when they are being invaded.
They will only fight only after unsuccessful peace talks and in order to prevent a war, some may even give gifts to prevent a war from happening. Some may even give their daughters to the other party just to save their country and people. All these are done just to try and prevent wars from happening.
In today's context, I am not so sure on why they are fighting. I have heard that some may even start fighting over trivial matters like staring, or even when someone hurls rude, abusive words.
I guess the views of people on wars changed may be the reason behind the start of a fight. A fight should only be done to protect someone or something precious, only then can this be called a fight, and of course, these people should also know how painful it is to strike someone bare-handed before they use a weapon to strike their opponent.
2006-09-07 01:31:27 · answer #3 · answered by carebears0408 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mostly because television and camera's bring the reality of war into the lives of everyday citizens. Before a war was fought on a battlefield and only the soldiers were killed (as a rule) now missiles and tanks can take out hundred and thousands of lives in one go and many of those killed and average citizens. Elderly, children, women and non military men are severly injured and whole towns ruined. If the fighting doesn't kill them, then disease and starvation does. I think the aftermath of the Japan bombings changed everyones opinion on the heroism of war the generations destroyed and they sickeness was horrifiying. someone can sit relatively safely, push a button and wipe out so many innocent people - it is not just soldier to soldier combat. Remember governments make war, not the people, and how many members of government do you see out there on the battle field???
2006-09-07 01:27:55 · answer #4 · answered by Saani_G 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont think that wars were ever considered romantic. There were many times that wars followed some pretty strict rules of engagement (excuse the pun) where they were only fought at certain times and such. Because of this people would watch them from the sidelines, but it was not ever considered a date kind of thing.
What WWI did (and continues to happen to war) is that it was a change of those rules of engagement. WW1 saw a change in many ways as to how it was fought. No more did they fight only at certain times of the day and such.
No, we probably see the more ancient of wars in a more romantic light but at the time (of any war) they were a brutal consideration for both sides.
2006-09-07 01:24:33 · answer #5 · answered by Duane L 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wars aren't fought with a gentleman's dignity anymore. Instead it is all about winning at any cost.
It used to be that if you were beaten down on the field you could give up and go home if you agreed no longer to participate in the war. That would never happen today. And depending on who you were fighting, giving up might not be an option for life.
The advent of machinery as real engines of destruction in world war 1 changed the emphasis from the man to the mechanical. And that importance from a gentleman's agreement on how to fight changed with that innovation as well.
2006-09-07 01:20:42 · answer #6 · answered by special-chemical-x 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't you mean romanticized? It has a slightly different meaning then romantic. The other thing,the Civil War was not in 1943,it was from 1861-65 . World War Two was from 1939-45. The Civil War has been romanticized over the years. Meaning of romanticized - to regard with affected or exaggerated emotion.
2006-09-07 01:36:50 · answer #7 · answered by Deerrunner 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In WW1 there was a great deal of hinir in being a warrior. Technology is the difference. The general population has access to war on an unprecidented level. The general population dosen't have the stomach for the work of warriors, or they would all be warriors. Wars are only romantizied after they are long over and not during them.
2006-09-07 02:20:15 · answer #8 · answered by spider 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Napoleanic Wars were about one army versus another. One navy versus another. Every war after that has been about mechanized slaughter and the destruction of your enemy's ability to field a military rather than the military itself. That's when the Romance that was present in the eighteenth and nineteenth century got sick. When mass print media, followed by radio, followed by TV, followed by the Internet came to the fore, those were like the four nails used to crucify that idea and send it into all oblivion.
2006-09-07 02:29:06 · answer #9 · answered by Johnny Canuck 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because many innocent people are killed during war, or maybe you think it's heroic killing innocent people just because the government can't have enough oil and money. Knights faught for their people, they where true heroes, they belive in what they where defending, actual soldiers don't even belive in what their fighting for, they are just manipulated by the governemnt. What a shame
2006-09-07 01:20:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋