Ahh thought so, Perc. Sorry for the confuzzlement.
As far as the Cursades go there was also Constantinople, which <i>WASN’T</i> a muslim city at the time.
Expecting honor in war is like expecting honor from a wolf. Sure, you can say all you want, but if you threaten the wolf, he’s going to tear your throat out.
When it comes down to it, if we really could have true honor during war, we would most likely not need it.
In battle, one should never resort to dirty tricks, like deceit, using others as shields, attacking from the back or destroying food supplies to starve a foe. A fallen foe should be given a chance to surrender. Even if he refuses, striking a fallen foe is an act of cowardice. Torture and the production and use of toxic or mass destruction weapons are atrocities and the perpetrators should be burned at the stake. Establishing fortifications in areas filled with civilians just to use them as cannon fodder is a disgusting act of cowardice. Poisoning or severely crippling a foe outside the battlefield are acts of cowardice. Attacking innocents or taking advantage of them are among the foulest of actions. All prisoners should be treated with dignity, and at the end of a battle, all survivors should be healed, regardless of their allegiance. Warriors fighting in groups should not pursue individual glory by jumping the gun, but cooperate and ensure the entire group’s survival. Religion, ethnic origin, nationality or any other differences, must never be used as an excuse for unfair persecution. Murder, pillage and other such actions are absolutely inexcusable. Killing a foe in battle should always be a warrior’s last choice, only when there is no other way.
So you are saying we should do horrible things to people who do horrible things?
I see the logic.
Originally posted by Rountree
[b]So you are saying we should do horrible things to people who do horrible things?I see the logic. [/b]
Are you responding to me or Manus?
Originally posted by Sir Percival
Are you responding to me or Manus?
Manus.
“Torture and the production and use of toxic or mass destruction weapons are atrocities and the perpetrators should be burned at the stake.”
Well I agree, Manus, a few points, but in different ways: A prisoner shouldn’t be kept longer than nessecary, as the prisoner becomes a burden, and there is simply no point in continuing to attack a defeated foe, unless the foe is determined to present a threat to you in the future.
As far as the weapons: does it make a difference? Dead is dead. Dying by a bullet, or by gas is no different a tragedy. Perhaps some weapons would mutilate or be more painful than others, but when it comes down to it, they’ll end up in the exact same state.
War isn’t exactly honorable, I agree. Nor is it humane. But rules of war kind of came about from a “just in case I lose, just in case you lose” attitude. Both sides agree to a standard of treatment so that neither suffers from an extreme aspect of war, with the understanding that the victor will not try to annihilate the vanquished. If successful, following rules of war will prevent extreme cases of pain or a larger number of deaths. Of course, not everyone will follow said rules. But following them allows you to claim a moral high ground, which can be important for morale.
No one can reasonably expect soldiers in combat to follow all standards. The single most important guideline soldiers follow is to survive and win, not to die following abstract ideals (at least as far as I can tell). And yes, killing a person is not humane; but there can be worse deaths than getting shot by, say, a pistol. Multiple chemical weapons are forbidden because of their extreme brutality and mercilessness. In a gun fight, one side can at least surrender. Or, perhaps, receive medical treatment. And perhaps it is considered acceptable to cut power lines or water instead of bombing citizens outright is because the former case gives an opportunity to surrender. And power lines or water can be restored afterwards, so the negative effects will be only temporary.
Will civilians still be killed? Yes. Will soldiers be shot in the face instead of the gear? Yes. Will things still be messy, regardless? Yes. Don’t expect perfection; perfection is impossible. That doesn’t mean that anyone that ignores said rules is blameless; he still did something improper, whether he meant to do so or not. I suppose those things need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. But it’s hardly an indication that we should just ignore all standards entirely. I believe that it is better to strive for an ideal, even if unattainable, than to do nothing; for in striving to improve all, we improve some, as apposed to nothing at all.
ends random talking stuff
Originally posted by Rountree
Manus.
I thought so, but I was a little befuddled. 
I wish that war were conducted the way in which Manus proclaims, but unfortunately, not everyone is going to agree. Why is the standard of honour which you prescribe the right one?
Torture and the production and use of toxic or mass destruction weapons are atrocities and the perpetrators should be burned at the stake.
Dont you call yourself a paladin Manus?If so, that above comment I bet, is highly disrespectful.You should not wish ill deeds upon others-even if they are the most cruelest,merciless bastard…basically what you’re saying is, everyone deserves a chance, right?
And preaching the right and wrongs of war like we’re mindless barbarians is also a bit odd.I’d like to see you in a battlefield, in the midst of constant gun fire, blood curdling screams, blood, and the reek or death, with your life on the line.There is very little time, chance and sanity that you are going to be repeating to yourself the do’s and don’t’s of how to survive in a war.
I repeat, not everone lives with honour, and a lot of people sure as hell do not die with honour.
Religion, ethnic origin, nationality or any other differences, must never be used as an excuse for unfair persecution.
I do agree with that statement totally.
But I must also say that humans are bloodthirsty.Maybe everyone, to a certain extent, and this is how humanity has thrived since it has begun.War will always exist in some form or another.This is not heaven.And I doibt very many share your views.However, you have your beliefs on war, and I have mine.I’m just elaborating on mine.
Things would be much easier if someone took the guns away and forced them to fight with swords, shields and spears…
Granted Jiharn, the moral high ground is a great booster to morale, and perhaps it is better to try to strive toward such an ideal.
But it all comes to me as trying to make war civilized, which is rather dumb, since war is pretty much a breakdown of civilization.
In a way, having such rules allows a person some comfort in thinking that the enemy will have at least some compassion and not worry about the possibility that he is dealing with an enemy who is capable of anything to survive, just like he is. A wolf trying to become a sheep, perhaps.
Originally posted by Manus Dei
Things would be much easier if someone took the guns away and forced them to fight with swords, shields and spears…
Edit: Perhaps, but guns were invented because it was much easier to kill, and to kill dispassionately. One does not have to look into the face of the one he shoots. And there’s no reason for the enemy not to use guns. Both swords and guns are killing instruments, and just as efective as the other, but the gun allows you to kill the swordsman before they can kill you.
Things would be much easier if someone took the guns away and forced them to fight with swords, shields and spears…
But this is the barbaric traits you speak of.Things would not be easier.People will still get killed regardless of dying on the blade of a sword or in the heart of a bomb blast.We are not a people of the past anymore, we are the beginning of a technological era.People will still die.
I don’t see it as much as trying to make war civilized as trying to offer a back door. What do you think an enemy would do if he knew you might accept his surrender, let him live, and eventually let him return home? And if he thought he would instead never again see the light of day? (an exaggeration)
I know that some enemies will take advantage of the customs of rules of war. Happened in Iraq often enough. But I believe that on the whole, the benefits for following rules of war outweigh the potential pitfalls. I may just be analyzing things incorrectly, though, but that is the opinion I hold.
Originally posted by Evangelion
Dont you call yourself a paladin Manus?If so, that above comment I bet, is highly disrespectful.You should not wish ill deeds upon others-even if they are the most cruelest,merciless bastard…basically what you’re saying is, everyone deserves a chance, right?
I do not agree with that, either. Yet, codes of honour vary and no two standards will agree. The code of honour to which Manus Dei aspires may very well consider that to be honourable.
I like to think of honour in terms of Platonic philosophy. Honour is an idea. So long as it remains a concept and not a real thing humans can never attain true honour because it is beyond the material world in which we humans live. The honour which humans practise in the world are imperfect copies of that the idea.
Originally posted by Manus Dei
Things would be much easier if someone took the guns away and forced them to fight with swords, shields and spears…
You do know that as years progress the percentage of people who die in battle is less and less? The barbarism that you are suggesting would only result in more lives destroyed. -_-
Arguably, though, it may not be so much about weapons but numbers, and the fact thata gun would probably be somewhat less accurate than a sword. While I’ve never used a sword (or another melee weapon for that matter), and can imagine in can be difficult to use, it would probably be a bit easier for your average grunt to poke someone in front of him with a pike.
Originally posted by StarStorm
it would probably be a bit easier for your average grunt to poke someone in front of him with a pike.
True, although pikes require training as well, since they are only truly effective when used in formation.
True. Granted, my knowledge of the medieval period is rather small, and kinda tainted by D&D. I’m thinking your average conscript would have not used much more than a spear and probably didn’t have much training.
Originally posted by Manus Dei
Honor is never regained once it’s lost, no matter what you do.
Originally posted by Manus Dei
Only perishing while fighting for a noble cause or renouncing his former life can wash the stain on a warrior’s honor.
Contradicting yourself a little bit there, huh Manus?
War is war. It is wrong, but neccessary. Attacking from the back and the like are just tactics. I would rather attack from the back and force a surrender than go through the front and cause countless more casualties.
I was merely trying to adapt the initial statement and make it more complete. And washing the stain is not the same as recovering the initial honor, since the person in question will always be marked.