>>96401157
It's not as if I don't understand what you're trying to say.

But Tolkien was a product of the trauma. He held a front row seat to how many bodies could be piled up and how quickly. He saw many who he called brother never come back. His is a 'sole survivor' style tale. He had so many friends. He came back alone. However, I'd question why anyone acts as if the sword was the soul of humanity's honor. I can assure anyone, there's nothing glamorous or envious about running a man through versus shooting them. Men came back from this with scars of the soul and mind more impossible to fix than any other kind of wound. This didn't start with the advent of the gun. And by the way, massed formations of archers volley firing without a specific target were used more than just a little. What kind of revisionist excuse is this? War was NEVER personal.

Any kind of nobility in this is.. entirely imagined and born of the kind of nostalgia people can only have for an age that they never lived in.

I'll throw in a freebie too. The advent of the gun has changed how the common man relates to their government. There's a reason why so many governments seek to take such implements away, and it's not for their lack of civility versus other weapons. Also, I'm sure you don't appreciate your lack of local brigands you are helpless against unless you have been training since birth for violence.

I really like fantasy, but the flip side to all of this is very ugly.