How were soldiers back then so low inhib to rape?

[Deleted member 756]

Every european and arab guy on this forum

Proof?

 

[Deleted member 11406]

Proof?

I refuse to give

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Cuz nobody back then cared

No

 

[jake_okok]

Uronically ancient/medieval War was FAR BETTER than moderne warfare
You had high rate of survival

I dont think this is true? You get a cut in medieval times, bye lol

 

[Deleted member 10987]

I dont think this is true? You get a cut in medieval times, bye lol

You had armor and even if you got cut, its nothing, only dangerous if you bleed to much or you vital organs damaged
Dont forget armor was really well made too
They protected very well contrary to what movies/shows/games make you believe
And Most losers were taked as prisoners
Its rare the battles where is there is a lot of prisoners

 

[Deleted member 10987]

I dont think this is true? You get a cut in medieval times, bye lol

What do you think leaders/generals dont fight in the battlefield ?
Because ofgunpowder
Because one bullet and they are gone
This is what happened to brillant swedish general Gustavus Adolphus who got headshoted in battle by a sniper (and it was only the 17th century)
Before gunpowder, nearly every leaders fought on the battlefield with their men

 

[Deleted member 2729]

Tbh I'm high inhib and pretty sure I would manage to rape a foid with the boys after seeing death and destruction for 6 months

 

[jake_okok]

You had armor and even if you got cut, its nothing, only dangerous if you bleed to much or you vital organs damaged
Dont forget armor was really well made too
They protected very well contrary to what movies/shows/games make you believe
And Most losers were taked as prisoners
Its rare the battles where is there is a lot of prisoners

Not entirely sure about mortality rate (you get differing results depending on era and other factors)
But
Sure u might have a bigger chance of getting a stray bullet to the head and dying, but it was far more shitty 100% lol
You need to count in diseases and the fact that they just weren't as medically advanced so, yes cuts are bad news (its not like you would just get scrapes?)
As for prisoner shit, its pretty well known (even in ww2/ww1) that you would kill off stragglers if there weren't a big group of them. And even then you get people like richard the lionheart who beheaded 2000 muslim prisoners for the lols. So good luck retreating in medieval times ahahaha

So i dont see why you think they would be far better, even if mortality rates were lower? It was undoubtedly shit, i think a lot of modern day soldiers even enjoy the process now
are medieval battles shit
U can just google how shit it was lol

 

[Deleted member 10987]

Not entirely sure about mortality rate (you get differing results depending on era and other factors)
But
Sure u might have a bigger chance of getting a stray bullet to the head and dying, but it was far more shitty 100% lol
You need to count in diseases and the fact that they just weren't as medically advanced so, yes cuts are bad news (its not like you would just get scrapes?)
As for prisoner shit, its pretty well known (even in ww2/ww1) that you would kill off stragglers if there weren't a big group of them. And even then you get people like richard the lionheart who beheaded 2000 muslim prisoners for the lols. So good luck retreating in medieval times ahahaha

So i dont see why you think they would be far better, even if mortality rates were lower? It was undoubtedly shit, i think a lot of modern day soldiers even enjoy the process now
are medieval battles shit
U can just google how shit it was lol

It was bad but modern warfare is worse

 

[jake_okok]

It was bad but modern warfare is worse

on what metric????????

 

[Schnitzel]

The rule is:

If everyone around you capable of doing so, so can you.

 

[Deleted member 10987]

on what metric????????

Far Higher chance of survival
More noble
Armor protected you
You needed to be skilled