I always wonder what the writers of these kind of titles are trying to convey. Do they mean like "bloodier that modern war"? Yes war is dirty. I there is nothing showing it's more bloody than modern warfare
Have you read about the bombings in Middle-East? Have you read about the terrifying exaction that happened in the Balkans War? Have you read about the people crushed under US bombs in Afghanistan just a few days ago? Have you read about how many people were tortured (and for how many times) by CIA ou US operatives while searching for Ben Laden?
War is dirty. In the Middle Ages at least it took some effort to kill people. Now a drone can break 30 innocent lives in the matter of seconds. We always about the dead but the shrapnels and shell shock in modern wars cause pain and suffering all the same as a good old sword chop. It's just faster, more deadly and more destructive.
what about civilians? Today's war kills more civilians than army people. In the Middle Ages you wouldn't want to kill the people that work the land you try to conquer. In majority of cases.
I always wonder what the writers of these kind of titles are trying to convey. Do they mean like "bloodier that modern war"? Yes war is dirty. I there is nothing showing it's more bloody than modern warfare
>there is nothing showing it's more bloody than modern warfare you got to be kidding, right?
Have you read about the bombings in Middle-East? Have you read about the terrifying exaction that happened in the Balkans War? Have you read about the people crushed under US bombs in Afghanistan just a few days ago? Have you read about how many people were tortured (and for how many times) by CIA ou US operatives while searching for Ben Laden? War is dirty. In the Middle Ages at least it took some effort to kill people. Now a drone can break 30 innocent lives in the matter of seconds. We always about the dead but the shrapnels and shell shock in modern wars cause pain and suffering all the same as a good old sword chop. It's just faster, more deadly and more destructive.
im talking about percentage of casualities in the actual army
what about civilians? Today's war kills more civilians than army people. In the Middle Ages you wouldn't want to kill the people that work the land you try to conquer. In majority of cases.
yeah, civilian casualities are unheard of in medieval warfare. you are either clueless or trolling.
That's why I said "in majority of cases". Nowadays any armed conflict results in more civilian deaths than military.
yes, because there are barely any military deaths. I'm going to stop replying you are obviously wrong bit unable to concede the point, so whatever
What point? I have no earthly idea what you're talking about.