just blaze. in reading accounts of war and seeing re-enactments, i'm always surprised by how neat and orderly everything is. at least in the "olden" days. people used to be able to sit on nearby hills and picnic while watching a battle. what a way to spend your sunday afternoon. "wow, did you see that guy just get ripped? pass the peas please." you know the part where the generals or kings go out in front of the armies and talk a little bit? exchange some cut downs, offer diplomacy, sling some bravado, that kind of thing. i'm always thinking, why do they not pull out their guns and just kill the opposing general right there? sure it's dirty and underhanded but it's war! anything is fair in love and war right? i think the label of ultimate cheater would be a small one if the payout was the death of the enemy's general. who's with me?



and look at how neatly the armies stack up. everyone in nice (alphabetical?) rows, ready to charge at each other -- the front ranks pretty much consigning themselves to instantaneous death. it's quite a way to conduct warfare. when the british and the europeans attacked america, it was due partly to the extensive guerilla warfare employed by the native americans that enabled them to overcome superior forces. the british armies would just walk around in nice big clumps and then get ambushed by the shadow melding indians. i am no expert on military history so excuse me if my knowledge is gleaned mostly from films. but i feel like this is such a weird way to wage combat. my army volleys, your army volleys, charge. it's too fair, too organized. it's like a sport with rules and boundaries. i'm surprised there are no referees for this type of thing.



i understand of course that civilized warfare with mercy, honor, and compassion is good for both sides. but if one side has nothing to lose, why not go for the proverbial kick in the balls? why fall gracefully and surrender when you can play dirty? and it just seems ridiculous to have a meeting place and a time to "wage war". at sunrise, by the community fields, you bring your army, i'll bring mine. and then they retire at night to regroup, to heal, to re-strategize. it's like a time out. why not just keep fighting until all the men on one side surrender? it's just so odd. a terrible thing like war waged in such a straight jacket conservative manner.



in world war one, the machine gun gave the germans an overwhelming advantage. they just sat there and mowed down the approaching allied forces. at one battle, if i recall correctly, five hundred thousand men died. i imagine thousands of men running right towards the entrenched german army, getting efficiently threshed by the multiple machine guns. after a few hundred thousand casualties, wouldn't you think somebody would say "ok, let's try something different, let's not rush them from the front, it doesn't seem to be working."



i must know nothing about military tactics and strategy since i can't see why two forces would so diplomatically wage war. luckily, technology gave us bombs and weapons of mass destruction and laser targeting to eliminate this need for face to face combat. now we can play as dirty as we want.