[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.46240184 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

The barbarians hold Bravery up as the greatest virtue of their warriors, and it is to be conceded that Bravery is useful and has it's place. However it's only the start. A force of warrior with only bravery is only a mob of crazy guys who charges screaming at the foe swinging widely even as they are cut down.

There is something greater than bravery. The ability, at a moments notice to gather up into neat lines, lock shields and not charge, but march with hundreds of feet rising and falling as one. To advance at the foes steadily and unflinchingly. If one falls his fellows move to fill the gap. Such a force weathers their slings and arrows and against their formation the enemies charges crash and break against them like waves unto boulders as they advance. Each man keeping his brothers in arms safe while being shielded in turn as they level anyone who stands in their path.

What is better than bravery? DISCIPLINE.

>> No.46240244

guns. guns are better than bravery and discipline.
But high explosives beats even guns

>> No.46240253

>guns are better than bravery and discipline.
I think in general guns just encouraged ever more disciplined troops.

>> No.46240273

see? better than discipline because it gets you guns AND discipline

>> No.46240284

You can't have discipline without bravery.

>> No.46240309

>There is something greater than bravery
...and it's called the Maxim gun.

>> No.46240329

Nah, it's bravery. When you're staring into the maw of the beast and you know the only way out is to do what your instinct tells you lead to death.

>> No.46240341

>What is better than bravery
Virtue. I personally maintain that Roman virtue is why Rome ended up defeating Carthage. Carthage was a merchant republic, one that relied mostly on paying others to fight for them. Rome, on the other hand, relied on this sense of "Romannness" and made sure that only those who had served in its armies for at least 10 years could hold public offices. Every politician, through his military career, was engrained with a sense of selflessness, the idea of serving the common cause, a love for Rome itself and most of all he saw his subjects as "his" boys. Not like the Carthaginians who solved their problems by throwing money at it. Even when they had the genius Hannibal on their side, they lost on every front where Hannibal wasn't directly involved. Meanwhile Rome's power wasn't in brilliant generals, but its ability to persevere and come back from any defeat stronger than before. That is until virtue collapsed, Germanic barbarians took over the Roman military from the inside and Christianity filled the hole Roman virtue ethics left behind.

In other words: bravery is what keeps a warrior running, discipline is what keeps an army running, virtue is what keeps a civilization running.

>> No.46240473

>Christianity contributed to Rome's downfall

Patently false. In fact, it had a unifying effect on the empire since it was adopted as the official religion.

>> No.46240512

I did not argue that. Quite the opposite: the decline of Roman virtue ethics created a hole, and Christian virtue ethics filled it. Hell, the respect St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas had for Roman virtue ethics (among others) may be the only reason why it even survived past the fall of Rome. I don't know much about Islamic virtue ethics so I can't say whether or not it will fill the hole we're creating right now.

>> No.46240984

Ah, my mistake then. I read your post the wrong way. I think I may be spending too much time on /his/ where this point gets shitposted pretty much daily.

>> No.46240991

A good General knows how to win and keep fighting

A great General knows how to lose and keep fighting

>> No.46241009

>A force of warrior with only bravery is only a mob of crazy guys who charges screaming at the foe swinging widely even as they are cut down.
How is this a bad thing?

If the bad guys aren't dead, send soldiers.
If they still aren't dead, send more soldiers.
If they still aren't dead, send MORE soldiers.
If they stiill aren't dead, don't worry, they are buried under our soldiers' bodies and can't do anything.

>> No.46241130

All armies that have existed have used it and its lasted longer than any army ever has. With it a man who's had 3 months of training can kill a man who's dedicated his life to training from 100 meters off. With it standing armies of vast numbers are now more a liability than an advantage. With it we can hold whole nations hostage to our whims from half a world away without risking a single hair on the head of any of their citizens. With it a fat old man who's never even held a knife let alone seen war can kill off millions with the push of a button. Technology is not only your answer, op, It is THE answer.

>> No.46241299

virtue is important, but a fuck huge reserve of manpower is even more important.

>> No.46241386

>But high explosives beats even guns
But when you get big enough guns, and you can shoot high explosives from them.

>> No.46241464

>Roman Republic 146BC
>a "republic"

This guy's a hundred percent right. Carthage had the better generals and better troops who mercenary or not where a band of brothers who had a reason to hate Romans. The only reason they lost was that the Romans could keep throwing themselves and the Latin allies they scared into line at Hannibal, while he was fighting on foreign ground with perfidious allies.

>> No.46241523

But you can blow those funs up with bigger explosives. Possibly fired from biggerer guns.

>> No.46241733

You only have to look at the first punic war. Rome was a landpower, Naval warfare was completly new to them and they lost their entire fleet 3 times over trying to learn it and adapt to their fighting style. Carthage would have simply called quits after financial losses like that and did so in the end when the Romans kept coming back for more, no matter how high their losses.

>> No.46242474

The greatest general knows how to win without fighting.

>> No.46242742


>> No.46242927

We calls those politicians. We send them all to a happy house so they can fight amongst themselves so real men can do their work in peace.

>> No.46243041

Bravey is action in the face of danger, charging in to the horde in a fury is easy when tapped in to that primal fearlessness we all can find. There is no bravery without thought else you are acting on instinct or merely just reacting.

As OP said, it is the man who fights and subdues his natural instinct to run, to charge, to howl and cry that has true bravey as he must fight both his foe and the barbarian urge to rid himself of fear.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.