>be zouave in 1914
>go over the top
>bright red parachute pants get stuck in barbed wire
>bright red fez fails to deflect bullets
>die before I can surrender
who thought this was a good idea?
>>456362
probably some faggot, it usually is.
>>456362
Metal helmets don't deflect bullets. They retard shrapnel and thrown up rocks and dirt.
>not modifying this uniform and making it the new army dress uniform
>>456362
At least they looked swag as fuck
>>456446
look at that fucking gnome in the middle
>>456450
Jealous?
>>456453
a little
>>456362
Ottoman soldiers pre-reforms generally dressed like that, no?
>>456396
They can stop bullets far away.
>>456362
Well you see, Zouaves were formed in a time where trench warfare was non existent, where warfare was much more about honor and less about business (which drove much of both world wars) and they were formed in a time where the style of the soldiers showed the status of the commander of the army.
Who else /historymajor/ here?
>>459106
> where warfare was much more about honor and less about business
This is a meme. Big ol formations were the best way to wage war when ranged weapons were weak. Being colorful was in many cases advantageous, for much the same reasons that castles were often painted in bright colors. A military maneuver is often, to the general, a communication to the opposing general expressing that certain other maneuvers they may have been considering have been foreclosed. A big bright formation sends a clear message.
>>459106
>Who else /historymajor/ here?
certainly not you
>>460416
kek
>>459106
>where warfare was much more about honor and less about business
huur duuur
>>460440
related, though people seem to hate this map due to a few minor inaccuracies
>>460445
it's not a few minor inaccuracies, it's that outside england=shire, the middleearth and europe simply do not correspond in terms of "source cultures" nor 1:1 geography at all
rohan is certainly not central germany, greenwood is certainly not the baltic sea (nor the wintery northern europe) etc.
>>460463
the people of Rohan are just Saxons if they were horsepeoples
huns/magyars = orcs (?)
Gondor = Romans
Nords = elves (?)
idk
>>460440
This was funny. Is there more?
>>460440
this took me way too long
>>460440
Oh god that's europe, I'm such an idiot
>>459106
>mfw reading your horrible comment
>>459106
>where warfare was much more about honor and less about business
>where warfare was much more about honor
>warfare
>honor
Two words that have never had anything to do with one another, and never will.
War is always ALWAYS about business and the tactics are merely shaped by the technology deemed most efficient at achieving victory. Nothing more.
People that post this crap should be banned on sight.
Stop bullying him. Of course it's naive to think that honor has anything to do with the (economic) motivations to wage war, but it is well documented that, as anon say, WW1 meant a radical change in the -way- in which war was waged, something for which Europe was not mentally ready. What anon means with "honorable" is the way in which XIXth warfare was waged: two armies meeting in the battlefield face to face and so forth. But WWI was a radical break because of several things: Trench warfare, fixed positions meant thousands dying with no territorial gains or losses. Civilians became targets as well.
There was a radical increment in ability to destroy (and from a longer distance): chemical weapons, air power, submarine warfare, etc., this was a a new "rationality" of war, a new way of "thinking" about war, much more cruel, destructive, etc., and armies and populations had to adapt themselves very fast (I read that the first french infantry companies that went to WW1 didn't carry even shovels...), they expected an "old school" war and got what authors like Traverso call "total war." My source on this is "Fire and Blood: The European Civil War, 1914–1945" by the aforementioned.
>>461463
But that still doesn't mean that the way wars were fought before was "honourable".
Apart from the fact that honour is a poorly defined term that means different things in each culture, conflicts like the 30 years war were definitely as brutal as WWI, they just aren't in our collective memory anymore.
>>461463
trench warfare was not new
>>461693
While trench warfare was not new (russo-japanese war) the commanders of all of the different european forces didn't understand it completely if at all.
>>460445
The oldest stories are set in the ancient world, Turin fights with the dragon on the river Nile.
>>460497
Eleves = celts
Dwarves = Romand and Greeks(Byzantine)
Men = Batavian Angles and Saxons
> Batavians were seen as the finest horsemen and used by Rome
Orcs = Huns and Barbarian Invaders
>>461277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Marchfeld
>Such ambushes were indeed commonly regarded as dishonourable in warfare and Rudolph's commander Ulrich von Kapellen apologized to his own men in advance.
they had trouble mustering just 60 knights for this in a 25.000 men strong army, so i guess people back then would disagree with you.
>>459106
This post is correct and the only reason it's getting shit is because /his/ is filled with edgycool atheist kiddies.
>>456446
>1910's tactical hoodie
W2C
>>459106
>and they were formed in a time where the style of the soldiers showed the status of the commander of the army.
Wrong
Proper militaries past 1815 had this thing call "standardization", you know, the logical way a massed organization like an army should be equipped. But since the world revolves around America we get this shit instead.
Literally fuck the civil war, creates the stupidest misconceptions of war before WWI for mainstream burgers since fuck ever. Also its retarded when you look at how garbage both sides were in comparison to real professional armies
>>459106
I'm guessing that you go to a private, liberal arts school.
Public research university master race reporting.
>>464607
I contend that the Union army could have run the fucking tables in Europe if they'd been unleashed.
Whether or not their uniforms matched.
t.a combat vet who realized just how little all of that shit matters.
>>464736
>I contend that the Union army could have run the fucking tables in Europe if they'd been unleashed.
I doubt that 2bh family - European battlefield tactics around the time of the Civil War were more advanced than those of the ACW, and the Europeans already had experience with the mass deployment of armies, railroad, trenches etc. from the years prior.
>>464736
>t.a combat vet who realized just how little all of that shit matters.
Are you trained in gorilla warfare? How many confirmed kills do you have?
Faggot.
>>465546
>this much projecting
>>456362
That's why it was changed in 1915 and that original uniform stayed just a ceremonial thing.
It used to be a good idea because it looked good. I know how silly that sounds but in fact that motivated a large number of people to sign up, just for the prestige of it.
>>460445
>>460497
>>461769
Are any of these ACTUALLY based in ANY fact? I've never seen half of these comparisons, and to suggest that a map of middle-earth damn near correlates with any (even near) modern boundaries seems like a total joke.
I always saw Tolkein's stories as some sort of absurdly convoluted Christ story.
>>465852
Tolkien was well known for his disdain of allegory so likely not.
>>465852
>I always saw Tolkein's stories as some sort of absurdly convoluted Christ story.
Because you're a pleb
>>465852
so who was jesus?
