>>2448065>making me frustrated over how insultingly weak, passive aggressive, incompetent, and cowardly the vast majority of people and men in general arewell, yeah, most people dont want to die, and rational outlook of war obviously lead you to try and avoid it or at least survive it
>revolved entirely around intimidating the opponent and only attacking once the enemy was fleeing and had their backs exposedgross oversimplification to the point of simply being wrong. Ofc most of the casualties happened during rout, its a lot harder to kill someone actively fighting back and surrounded by his fellow soldier in a formation than stabbing a running guy in the back, but that does not mean there wasnt significant fighting and that morale was simply psychological tricks and not also a reflection of the actual fighting progress.
>dishonourable you sound very spooked for someone interested in war. Sadly common, but very bad if you're actually interested in understanding shit
>anything rooted in battlefield functionbut morale is a battlefield function
>effectively rendering any actual fights between warriors as almost nonexistent in preindustrial warfare. well thats just plain wrong, even if you forget the big battles that were kinda uncommon, there was plenty of low scale local fighting. But you also seem under the impression raiding and looting is always easy against the defenseless, while the whole rise of chivalry and knights in medieval times was all about protecting your shit as much as raiding the shit of others, and they fought quite often in those circumstances. Ofc, as rational people, they would quickly recognize their common interests as a warrior class in these low scale local conflicts, and started ransoming each other rather killing each other, which would eventually give rise to the whole bullshit about honor and chivalry
>Mass casualties among soldiers due to exposure to diseasewe had that before gunpowder, and it was more due to bigger armies due to bigger and more organized and centralized social entities
>Vietnam against France was probably the only time where things improved a bit with how easy it was to respect soldierswat. How the f is a colonial guerilla war giving you respect for the soldier. You really are very spooked
>which meant you had soldiers fighting the way you’d initially imagine against armed and readied opponents instead of picking fights with literal children >soldiers fighting the way you’d initially imagine newsflash, soldiers never fought the way they do in action movies, but even in ancient times you had various professional soldiers who had war as their main occupation and fought each other
sorry OP but what you're saying is mostly stupid bullshit, although theres a grain of truth : war is not cool, morale is important