Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dogbrain" data-source="post: 1282129" data-attributes="member: 14980">First, I am of the opinion that very large, mostly infantry, armies would probably be the dominant military force.&nbsp; I have read enough history to see that the elimination of conventional infantry was predicted over and over.&nbsp; First, the breechloading rifles was to eliminate infantry.&nbsp; Then it was the repeating rifle (machinegun).&nbsp; Then tanks were to eliminate infantry.&nbsp; Then it was aircraft.&nbsp; Then, in the '70s, the &quot;experts&quot; were claiming that a whole bunch of gee-whiz remote control doodads would eliminate infantry.Here we are in the 21s century, and there is still no substitute for Joe, Tommy, Fritz, and all the other poor dogfaces to be found the world around.&nbsp; New technologies get neutralized by other new technologies or new tactics. I'd say that the same is probably true for D&amp;D settings.&nbsp; Yes, there is battlefield magic, but that's what the other guy's battle magicians are there to neutralize.&nbsp; In the end, it's grunt against grunt--a nasty, unpleasant, unhappy business.Likewise, when we look at how &quot;good&quot; or &quot;evil&quot; armies operate, we should be conscious of how unusual our sensibilities are in the broader scope of human history.&nbsp; Armies and leaders that we are taught were &quot;good&quot; considered it no burden on their consciences if they were to put a city to the sword--men, women, and children--and completely sack it if that city held out for more than X time in a siege.&nbsp; If they had not wanted to be slaughtered all, they would have surrendered and given up the &quot;lawful plunder&quot;.&nbsp; That was part of the conventions of war in medieval Europe.&nbsp; So, one has to decide that either &quot;good&quot; and &quot;evil&quot; might be culturally conditioned or that all the leaders of medieval Europe (including those used as models for fantasy) were actually quite evil, with no exceptions.&nbsp; Of course, this raises the question of whether ANY political leader can avoid being evil or at the very least doing evil.&nbsp; One Italian political philosopher probably would have answered &quot;not if he wants to remain a leader&quot;.As for ordinary plunder and pillage, as late as the American Revolution, common soldiers would protest if an officer restrained them from pillaging.&nbsp; British forces would plunder the rebels.&nbsp; Patriot forces would plunder the tories.&nbsp; Murder of non-combatants was an acceptable tactic in the western theater of that war.&nbsp; The British recruited Indians.&nbsp; The Americans recruited rangers.&nbsp; They both used the same tactics.&nbsp; So, does that mean two &quot;evil&quot; nations were at war against each other?In my own campaign, there is no thought given by the clergy of the various nations.&nbsp; Of COURSE their cause is good, their enemies are evil, and they deserve to take what they need when on foreign soul.&nbsp; Mind you, the &quot;good&quot; of the ale-swigging, cattle-raiding, bearded axe-swingers with horse-riding nobility is probably different from the &quot;good&quot; of the wine-chugging, athelete-sponsoring, clean-shaven spear-thrusters with charioteering nobility...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dogbrain, post: 1282129, member: 14980"] First, I am of the opinion that very large, mostly infantry, armies would probably be the dominant military force. I have read enough history to see that the elimination of conventional infantry was predicted over and over. First, the breechloading rifles was to eliminate infantry. Then it was the repeating rifle (machinegun). Then tanks were to eliminate infantry. Then it was aircraft. Then, in the '70s, the "experts" were claiming that a whole bunch of gee-whiz remote control doodads would eliminate infantry. Here we are in the 21s century, and there is still no substitute for Joe, Tommy, Fritz, and all the other poor dogfaces to be found the world around. New technologies get neutralized by other new technologies or new tactics. I'd say that the same is probably true for D&D settings. Yes, there is battlefield magic, but that's what the other guy's battle magicians are there to neutralize. In the end, it's grunt against grunt--a nasty, unpleasant, unhappy business. Likewise, when we look at how "good" or "evil" armies operate, we should be conscious of how unusual our sensibilities are in the broader scope of human history. Armies and leaders that we are taught were "good" considered it no burden on their consciences if they were to put a city to the sword--men, women, and children--and completely sack it if that city held out for more than X time in a siege. If they had not wanted to be slaughtered all, they would have surrendered and given up the "lawful plunder". That was part of the conventions of war in medieval Europe. So, one has to decide that either "good" and "evil" might be culturally conditioned or that all the leaders of medieval Europe (including those used as models for fantasy) were actually quite evil, with no exceptions. Of course, this raises the question of whether ANY political leader can avoid being evil or at the very least doing evil. One Italian political philosopher probably would have answered "not if he wants to remain a leader". As for ordinary plunder and pillage, as late as the American Revolution, common soldiers would protest if an officer restrained them from pillaging. British forces would plunder the rebels. Patriot forces would plunder the tories. Murder of non-combatants was an acceptable tactic in the western theater of that war. The British recruited Indians. The Americans recruited rangers. They both used the same tactics. So, does that mean two "evil" nations were at war against each other? In my own campaign, there is no thought given by the clergy of the various nations. Of COURSE their cause is good, their enemies are evil, and they deserve to take what they need when on foreign soul. Mind you, the "good" of the ale-swigging, cattle-raiding, bearded axe-swingers with horse-riding nobility is probably different from the "good" of the wine-chugging, athelete-sponsoring, clean-shaven spear-thrusters with charioteering nobility... [/QUOTE]

Verification