I recently got in an argument with my friends, and had trouble finding articles on the web about the topic. They claimed that combat was more "honorable" in the past. Soldiers would fight in hand-to-hand combat, so they would see their opponent's face and see them as a person, not just as a number. Meanwhile, in more recent times (WW2 for example), soldiers just bomb each other from planes from a distance. They listed the Roman empire, knights, samurai as examples of honorable fighters.
I argued the opposite, that fighting was much less honorable in the past. People would rape and pillage, with no regard for humanity, morals or ethics in times of war. They replied "nah, you only think that because it's what you've seen in the movies". I continue, nowadays we have Geneva convention, people are more humane etc. As an example, I said that in the past if a soldier came upon an enemy with his backed turned, he would totally just stab in the back. They said he wouldn't just kill him, he would fight him in honorable combat.
Anyway, I know it's a pretty vague question and there's a lot of variety in the answers but I was hoping to get some actual facts from people who actually know what they're talking about. Thanks!
I think that you and your friend are both right and wrong because the idea of honor in battle could very much have arose from the necessity to repress the use of weapons/tricks too cruel/devastating.
That theory is in the introduction of book of Adrienne Mayor: "Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Poison Bombs. Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World". In it she shows the existence and the devastating effects of some weapons such as poisoning water sources, arrows, dropping scorpions on the enemy... The main idea is that some tactics were seen as so terrifying (and risky) that their used was repressed or controlled. In that way honor can be seen as a moral agreement between fighters to avoid that the war was too costly. Remember that for centuries the goal of war is (almost) never to annihilate your enemy to the last man but to impose your will on him (in the form of a peace treaty or of loot). That is also why honor evolved because of technology but also from various fighting styles. In society were war was waged through duels, replacing melee as a way to spare lives, the use of ranged weapons could have been seen as less honorable as it broke the agreement to meet face to face in a decisive fight (I had the Homeric heros in mind, even if the Illiad is a mix between Mycenian and early archaïc elements, the same idea can also be found in the fight between the roman Horatii and the Curiatii of Alba).
Of course this is a rather rough generalisation but I hope it would offer you clues to understand the complex relationship between honor and cruelty.