>>14579
I don't know when it "first" ended to be glorious, but for most people, opinion changed by the end of the First World War.
The trenches and the war being a "total war" with participation not from just the professional military, but civilians as well, terrible pandemics like the Spanish flu, colonial weariness, etc; basically hammered the last nail in the coffin of romanticism. (but humans are forgetful idiots, and easily swayed)

World War 1.

At the beginning of that war, everyone worth a shit rushed in to join together to fight for God & country. Once they experienced the reality of tens of thousands of people at a time getting mowed down senselessly by machinery without even having the chance to put up a fight, they realized there was no glory to be had. ...a lesson reiterated in every war since, making war much more unlikely & proportional.

The US, however, has found a way around this, even after the disasters of its war efforts in Korea, South America, and Vietnam by not requiring compulsory military service, separating the decision to go to war from the people who will actually go to war, thus ensuring a continual state of more and crazier wars until it is destroyed.

>>14585
>I should also mention that in early gun battles shooting to miss was as common as it was in WW1, turns out that without an extreme propaganda system people don't like killing each other for fear of personal safety and distaste
It wasn't the propaganda system that made people shoot each other (though it did make them want to shoot each other). It was when the British came up with the great idea of shaping their targets like actual people rather than using the traditional round bullseye every other country was using that helped make their recruits less sensitive to the experience. Until then the only recorded humanoid targets used were by generally nerfarious people using prisoners (initially live) for a combination of training, indoctrination and instilling fear in their own troops.

War was never truly glorious to begin with. Generally power-hungry people, with a lot of influence and money, are able to paint war as being glorious. By doing this, they can get more people to use as pawns to fight wars for them.

I think the Crimean war can also be seen as the end of these glory days. Following the war Russia could no longer use religion as an excuse to invade the Balkans, so war is going to be solely for political gain if they choose to invade. Also, the letters and propaganda that returned home from the soldiers/journalists was mostly criticizing the organizations of their respective army, as well as their leadership in general. Most people began to see the atrocities of warfare at this point and knew that war wasn't as romantic as many made it out to be.

>>14871

Oh boy, your just all over this board now shitting it up with meaningless, out of context, god squad posts.

Can you please confine these shitastic posts to your own topics please?

>>14579
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

I'm still in the war of 1776 ama

something like 20,000 turks running into a single machine gun nest and losing.

got kinda gay when the machines were the heroes.

Verdun.
It was only ever glorious for morons with no other accomplishments to speak of in their life, but the industrialized mass killing of thousands of hapless plebs per hour, day in & day out for absolutely no purpose but bc generals were idiots & kept mindlessly feeding their ranks into the meatgrinder hoping to impress an enemy by outspending them, wasn’t actually glorious, it was just a raw waste of manpower, and everyone could see that.

>When did war stop being glorious?
When video killed the radio stars.

With printed media it was normal to sensationalise. headlines and leads sold war as a glorious thing everyone could be proud of partaking in as it was personal sacrifice for the greater good, if you said otherwise it wouldn't get past the censors and it wouldn't be published. There was also a speculation aspect, there was delay between prints which allowed people to speculate what was happening on a week to week basis. People got invested in the story of war.

Radio carried on this tradition, but struggled, whilst the state controlled the broadcaster the ability to provide regular updates and lack of headlines and leads it became more of a daily affair rather than a highlight of the week reading about the war effort. Rather the sensational stories were being shown as newsreels in movie theatres.

TV has ultimately taken away the glory, the daily sensationalise of news stories has reduced the impact, everyone can now "see" and get updates on wars on a daily basis.

I agree with those who say that war was never glorious. We glorify warriors because of the horrors they are willing to face. Whether you are an Assyrian archer, a Greek hoplite, a Frankish heavy cavalryman, or a Navy SEAL, there is nothing glorious about war. Glory comes from surviving long enough to convince yourself that it WAS glorious; while you're drinking a pint at your local. There is not a man...at least a 'non-progressive' man...who does not look at the horrors of battle and question if he has the courage to face them.

Read the Anglo-Saxon poem fragment 'The Battle of Maldon', and J.R.R. Tolkien's superb treatise on it. Damn little that is 'glorious' to be found there...which leads me to agree with the authorities who maintain that the author was there when the spears were shivering, and who therefore KNEW what war really was.

Youtube  What is war good for?

>>15520
Perfect example of modern retroactive nihilism. War has glory, honour did exist and respect was given to warriors. Male hierarchies were naturally respected because actions speak louder than words - ability for violence overruling any debate.

>>15607
Rather than be that guy, I'll talk about what I find lovable about war.

The way it simplifies all of life's problems down to 'can you?' 'what is important?' and so on. This as a 1:1 culture, not [especially not the modern nihilist version]. The human aspect. As a collective with men it's just assumed bravado, but otherwise an ordinary thing. That's something that we have little of after 2010.