As we wrapped up the Iliad in class, we constantly talked about honor. The idea that if you died in battle it was the highest honor anyone could receive and i was wondering how the mindset of war has changed throughout the years. Especially the evolution of war on a person's mind. I was doing some research and I looked up, in my opinion, the most important weapons in history.
1. Stick and Stones- Since the beginning of time
2. Swords- Bronze Age-(around 3300 B.C)
3. Bow and Arrow- 5th century B.C
4. Cannon-1132
5.Musket-1440's
6.Machine Gun-1862
7. A-bomb-1945 (when it was first used)
Now thinking of today, we are able to kill someone thousand miles away. Compare today's warfare with the Trojan war and it is incredible different. Now imagine you vs. an enemy, you both have swords in hand and a shield. Now you kill that person. You actually had that person die arms length away and you saw the life drain from him. Now imagine that you are fighting today, you are able to shoot someone from hundreds yards away and you might not even know if your bullet killed that person. So if you look at the development of weapons, each weapon has allowed a person to kill from a greater distance allowing them to have a better chance for their survival, but it has also taken away from the glory of defeating your enemy. Yes different cultures view war differently, but for the time of the Trojan war using your strength and will power to defeat your enemy was one of the greatest accomplishments a person could have. So with the development of weapons, the mental aspect of killing your enemy has changed over the course of history.
10 comments:
i think another thing that this distanced warfare has created is that impersonal aspect of war. Now, you can kill someone and never see their face; in the days of the Iliad, you might even know their name. i think that drastically changes how wars are fought.
i think that the long-range missiles would be number 8 on your list, like the ICBM and the IRBM. With an ICBM, you can send a missile from 3,500 miles away with at least decent and often pretty good accuracy.
When you talk about glory being lost, I think there is something more important; the idea that fairness is completely out the door. When you fight an enemy, each with a sword and shield, it was fair game. Now, which ever soldier has the better equipment will most likely defeat his opponent.
Also, I can't help but remember the scene from "All Quite on the Western Front," where the soldier is trapped in a trench with a man he has just killed. It seems so much harder to kill when you see the person before and after the act.
Not only have these advancements in weaponry made a difference in the psychology of killing a person, but they've affected how many people can be killed as well. This point may seem a little obvious, but throughout history the number of deaths in war directly reflect the technology of both the weapons and defense. In the times of the sword and bow and arrow, the average death toll for a battle would be no more than 5 thousand. Now think to World War II when almost 750000 people were killed at Stalingrad. Advcancement of weaponry has not only made it easier to kill a person, but easier to kill more people.
I believe that it much easier to kill people both physically and mentally thanks to the technology used in today's battles. From a numbers perspective, it is much easier to kill a large group of people thanks to larger and more powerful weapons. Strategically, the military can kill people with long distance bombs and other weapons. It is also easier to kill a red target on a screen than it is to kill a man face to face. Technology has made it easier and has made us feel better about killing people.
ICBM, as Tess says, certainly would top my list as most influential weapon, simply because of their capability to completely destroy anything, anywhere in the world. In reaction to what to what Mikey said about fairness and equality, I don't think that matters. We've discussed mankind's animalistic nature and better equipping yourself goes along those lines. Humans naturally don't want to die and by better arming themselves, they improve their chances of not dying. In war, most humans don't care about what is fair but about what improves their chances of survical.
I also believe as a result to the development of weapon technology it has led to fewer glorified heroes in battle because of the fact that it is hard to distinguish one soldier from another in the battlefield anymore. I agree with Michael that the idea of fairness is completely gone now. I feel that another important weapon that was left out was the grenade because it led to all future explosives.
Sean, very good post. A lot of the things I was going to say have been mentioned, but I completely agree with those who talked about the ICBMs. Also, I was just thinking how different warfare in general is. In the old days when there were many skirmishes and you and your enemy line up right across from each other. But now there really aren't battles like that. So yes, I think that change can be attributed to the evolution of weapons.
Not only has the glory of killing been lost, but the glory of dying has been lost. Yes - people say they are willing to die for their country and we rightfully honor and respect our fallen soldiers, but no one hopes to die in battle like the Greeks or Trojans. This can be attributed to the progression of weapons also. Now, many people can be killed by a single missile, so deaths are becoming more of a statistic than an event.
I agree with the conclusion, without necessarily agreeing with the reasoning behind it. I do think people now view war differently because the weapons are different. I don't imagine the trojans or acheans would think war was bad all of a sudden if guns were around. I think people have become more civilized over the last centuries, and that's why we view war as more repugnant. I think the fact that guns and bombs let you kill your opponent from farther away is merely a correlation with societies views, not a causation.
Seany, you make a really good point with the mental aspect of war and weaponry. I really liked the draw you made when you touched on the fact that because people are able to kill from much farther away, they are able to keep the distance between themself and the person they just killed. While this allows people to kill without feeling as much remorse, does it also remove a sense of honor and glory like you said that soldiers once felt?
Post a Comment