> the myth that fighting in war is somehow "glorious" is thankfully dying out. i do think there is a case to be made that serving in a pre-industrial military could be "glorious"--or, at the very least, a far more attractive proposition than serving in the military now. yes, war has always been a miserable, bloody affair, but at least back then you had to actually meet your opponent on the field of battle. now? some dude in an air conditioned room thousands of miles away can press a button and fucking vaporize you in an instant with surgical precision (and the whole thing can be video taped so your final moments of writhing agony can be put on the internet for people to laugh at). military operations back then were often flat-out about conquest (and the soldiers themselves would get to partake in that in the form of rape/looting, something which is obviously discouraged in modern warfare). now, the rationale for every conflict is couched in a bunch of geopolitical mumbo-jumbo and gay shit about "muh democracy" or whatever. militaries were also more explicitly masculine and took their cultures, traditions, sense of brotherhood, and history much more seriously--modern militaries are cringe as fuck (largely owing to the fact that they are glorified welfare programs for the most part), and their efforts to actually motivate their troops or instill some kind of warrior ethos always fall hilariously flat and come across as something cooked up by a focus group of out-of-touch boomers. lastly, success in battle actually meant something back then. war heroes were actually venerated and rewarded--being the first guy to scale the wall (and survive) would fucking set you and your descendants up for life. various militaries would reward their soldiers with land. now, you get what? free college and shitty healthcare? of course, let's not forget the fact that you would actually serve with your tribesmen, and not a mystery soup of niggers, immigrants, faggots, women, and so forth.
United States