Why did urban warfare turn from fun looting and raping to nightmare after world war 2?
>>64656334Fighting in cities was generally avoided if possible as it severely limited the command and control abilities and introduced too many elevated positions for the defenders. The looting and raping aspect only really commenced when the defensive works of a city had been taken violently and organised resistance was already broken before terms of surrender could be reached. There were of course cases where cities were deliberately singled out for sacking (such as the infamous Sack of Antwerp of 1576) but those were part of larger penative expeditions, where terrorizing the civilian population and destroying their economic foundation were the goals.
Guns.
>>64656334it was always a nightmarewhen the French first considered instituting chivalric rules of war, the looting and raping which was the then-norm was kept as a reward because of the horrors of urban assaultit's still a horror, it's just that the reward has gone
>>64656334the looting and raping was part of a punishment/reward system. if they surrendered pretty early on in the siege process then they would usually go much, much lighter on the city, if they had to go through the process of a multi year siege then they might punish the survivors pretty hard
>>64656334>fun looting and rapinghttps://youtu.be/MqTRzStmaLM?si=w8WpFhRly1lm-OT1&t=106Nah man. Shits horrifying.
>>64656334Because by the time the fighting made it into city either the defenders had already surrendered or the defences had already collapsed.
>>64658244>?si=w8WpFhRly1lm-OT1fuck off glownigger
