Back in medieval times people wouldnt be afraid of anything at all but now theyr all cowards and when you point a gun or anything at you they are like "Dont kill me!!! anyway tell me why people are cowards,answers may lead to movies,stories all things like that
Soldiers would clash head on with each other because it was an efficient means to attack an opponent, or to defend from attackers who rushed straight in.
And even this didn't happen that often. You can find many many many many many many many many (did I say many?) instances in which an army uses an ambush against another force.
And even this didn't happen that often. You can find many many many many many many many many (did I say many?) instances in which an army uses an ambush against another force.
That's still head on fighting, in that they have to go toe to toe in close combat, or at least within arrow range, which isn't far enough.
That's still head on fighting, in that they have to go toe to toe in close combat, or at least within arrow range, which isn't far enough.
But you are hiding from the enemy...and jumping out at last minute so that you can take them by surprise and gain an advantage from their disarray.
Plus..if that is the reason for qualifying what bravery is in a soldier (fighting "toe to toe"..then I call bull****. Soldiers now use guns..why? They are so much more efficient, and other things Nemo explained. It would just be completely asinine to resort back to past weaponry while the advanced and far more efficient option is available.
Eventually we begin to see gorilla warfare, where soldiers would retreat behind cover more often and take advantage of the fact the enemy had everyone lumped together in one large group.
Gorilla warfare is a filthy,dirty,cowardly,unimaginably horrific hell.
Any Medieval guy approaching a cathedral on Sunday and seeing all those stone gargoyles and representation of Hell probably crapped himself from fear and ignorance so... xD
And even this didn't happen that often. You can find many many many many many many many many (did I say many?) instances in which an army uses an ambush against another force.
That's still head on fighting, in that they have to go toe to toe in close combat, or at least within arrow range, which isn't far enough.
Both of these are great points. Even when men clashed for face to face combat, they would resort to whatever tactics they could to give them an advantage.
Gorilla warfare is a filthy,dirty,cowardly,unimaginably horrific hell.
Do you know what we call soldiers who fight honorably and fair? Dead.
Don't mistake bravery with foolishness or desperation. Charging with a sword against another guy in a sword gets you fairly equal chances, skill and a bit of luck decides. Your example of an empty handed civilian surrendering to someone armed with a gun just means the civilian isn't suicidive enough to throw himself into a fight in which there's hardly any chance of survival, and no gain from self-sacrifice.
Well; life was pretty cheap and mundane back in the day; epecially for the peasantry (referring to medieval europe (about 800-1400)), so violent death on the battle field i.e. getting hacked to pieces or torn apart by cannon fire would have been a welcome relief for many. Besides, they didn't have much choice because openly defying your lord/king/queen was more or less suicide. Plus, everyone was dogmatically religious and certain of their salvation in the afterlife, and that they were morally in the right when they went to war.
Nope, people back then weren't any braver people now; they just had harsher lives to put up with. And there are thousands upon thousands of people all over the world who manage to survive and support their families in war-zones, abject poverty, famine and natural disasters. To call those people cowards is insulting and ignorant.
Well; life was pretty cheap and mundane back in the day; epecially for the peasantry (referring to medieval europe (about 800-1400)), so violent death on the battle field i.e. getting hacked to pieces or torn apart by cannon fire would have been a welcome relief for many.
I'm pretty sure people back then would rather die at home, poor, but at home, rather than violently somewhere far away.
if i was a peasant i would train myself as a swordsmen and work hard for the monarch i was working for and get myself promoted which means more money,more luxuries
if i was a peasant i would train myself as a swordsmen and work hard for the monarch i was working for and get myself promoted which means more money,more luxuries
That's not happening in a feudal society. And I say feudal, because it's the most common medieval mindset that others think about, so let's just be general and focus on West European feudal.
As a peasant you're not going to have the resources to get your proper weapons and train. Nor are you going to have much an idea of how to train, since your main job in life is largely restricted to the farm. Third, if you don't have a drop of noble blood in your veins, you can sod off, since you're nothing but scum in the eyes of the aristocrats, mere cannon fodder. Fourth, your average life expectancy was around 30. Training just to potentially die in one war is very logical!
