NationStates Jolt Archive

in my opinion the world would be a much more peaceful place if we still had wars where it was hand to hand to combat with swords and maces and such...if we still had wars where 100,000 men could die in a day i think that we would realise how point less wars can be...what do you think?


~please try not to flame~

It'd be about the same, except it would just take longer to kill 100,000 people. :)

That's kinda messed. But combat with swords and mace, that would be awesome.

Humans in my viewpoint desire either order or chaos, but not together.

War is the most ready form of chaos when humans have had too much order, when we've had too much chaos, then order will return.

That's the pattern.

That's kinda messed. But combat with swords and mace, that would be awesome.
welcome to my life :D

You fight your wars medieval style. The smart ones will keep their machine guns and tanks and bombers, and massacre you.

Thus, modern weapons will have a new purpose: Natural selection eXpress.

So in the end the only thing you'd accomplish is not seeing how pointless war would be, but how pointless trying to fight a war with technology outdated for a millenium would be.

The number of deaths and people's opinion of war wouldn't change. They would just kill each other in a much less efficient way. The only difference would be that politicians would ride into battle with the troops, and it wouldn't occur to people to target a specific person (less assasinations). Assuming that you're taking the whole war system and not just the weapons, which you might not be.

You fight your wars medieval style. The smart ones will keep their machine guns and tanks and bombers, and massacre you.

Thus, modern weapons will have a new purpose: Natural selection eXpress.

So in the end the only thing you'd accomplish is not seeing how pointless war would be, but how pointless trying to fight a war with technology outdated for a millenium would be.
the idea is thta every one reverts to teh medieval style of war

in my opinion the world would be a much more peaceful place if we still had wars where it was hand to hand to combat with swords and maces and such...if we still had wars where 100,000 men could die in a day i think that we would realise how point less wars can be...what do you think?


~please try not to flame~you can still have wars where 100,000 men can die in a day.

however, I will agree that Guns have made killing too easy. in the olden days, one had to be up close and personal. you looked your foe in the eyes as knives were being slid into flesh. to actually have a war, you needed to train them, march them to your foe and have them start wailing upon each other.

now drop of a couple of armored vehicles and they rarely see their enemies eyes.

in my opinion the world would be a much more peaceful place if we still had wars where it was hand to hand to combat with swords and maces and such...
Like in the DRC the last decade. One day there will be a consensus on how many million people died.

yould think that it would make a big difference but we had plenty of wars when all combat was hand to hand so i think it would be about the same

except that in hand to hand you dont have the mass casualties that you get with carpet bombing

the idea is thta every one reverts to teh medieval style of war

Which in itself is impossible.

To force gun owners and militaries to give up guns, you must use superior force.

To use superior force, you must have something more powerful than guns.

However your doctrine advocates you using medieval weapons as an implement of force.

So any armed force would be able to overpower you rather than vice versa.

Thus, Catch-22.

in my opinion the world would be a much more peaceful place if we still had wars where it was hand to hand to combat with swords and maces and such...if we still had wars where 100,000 men could die in a day i think that we would realise how point less wars can be...what do you think?


~please try not to flame~

Nahhh.

The main method of killing in Rwanda was the machette and spear. That didn't change anybodies viewpoint.......

however, I will agree that Guns have made killing too easy. in the olden days, one had to be up close and personal. you looked your foe in the eyes as knives were being slid into flesh. to actually have a war, you needed to train them, march them to your foe and have them start wailing upon each other.
This is one of the more ridiculous sentiments I have ever heard.
First, I did a bit of fencing once, and I have fought bare handed, so I think I have the authority to say that the other guys eyes aren't what you worry about. You generally worry about your own eyes, and where his hands/blades are in relation to them.
Second, wars aren't fought with knives. Foot men often use spears (which profer a sizable difference from the other guy) or swords (which still put him a bit farther away). Horse men were on horses, and that put them farther away then knives by a nice margin.
Finally, Bows have been around as long as war and string have coexisted. With a bow, you don't look the guy in the eyes either.

you can still have wars where 100,000 men can die in a day.

however, I will agree that Guns have made killing too easy. in the olden days, one had to be up close and personal. you looked your foe in the eyes as knives were being slid into flesh. to actually have a war, you needed to train them, march them to your foe and have them start wailing upon each other.

now drop of a couple of armored vehicles and they rarely see their enemies eyes.

You've been watching too many movies. War has always been a brutal, nasty thing. There's no 'honorable' aspects that need to be preserved from times of old. The point of war is not to be the most macho man possible, ask most actual combatants and they'll tell you the point is not to die and to accomplish orders along the way.

Nahhh.

The main method of killing in Rwanda was the machette and spear. That didn't change anybodies viewpoint.......

Come to think of it, if fighting wars with medieval technology would make us forsake war, howcome we didn't forsake it after the actual medival ages?

Fighting long wars with swords and spear didn't end it then... What makes today any different?

This is one of the more ridiculous sentiments I have ever heard.
First, I did a bit of fencing once, and I have fought bare handed, so I think I have the authority to say that the other guys eyes aren't what you worry about. You generally worry about your own eyes, and where his hands/blades are in relation to them.
Second, wars aren't fought with knives. Foot men often use spears (which profer a sizable difference from the other guy) or swords (which still put him a bit farther away). Horse men were on horses, and that put them farther away then knives by a nice margin.
Finally, Bows have been around as long as war and string have coexisted. With a bow, you don't look the guy in the eyes either.now think about this.

Arrows can be blocked by a wooden sheild. Bullets you need a wall.
A Charging Knight can be taken down with arrows or with Pikes. how do you stop a flying bullet?

but the one thing you're missing is that for all the weapons of the olden days requires training to use properly. Guns, the Great Equalizer, don't, sure anyone can pick up a knife, sword, bow and try to use it, but a Gun is the easiest and simplest weapon to use and it can be use without showing yourself to your target.

you wanna kill a man, with a sword you have to go up to him and slice him. with a gun, heck, you don't need to leave your car, or home.

Sniping a person with a bow or crossbow leaves the shooter with more risk than a sniper with a rifle.

want proof. go hunting with a bow and see how much harder it is than with a gun.

Well the thing is. Let's say that we start off with everyone only having iron weapons. Sounds reasonable. If youre not cool with iron, then steel. The only reason you go to war is to win. You dont do it to lose since that would be plain stupid and costly. As wars go on, people will want to win more and if everyone has the same weapons then it will be based on sizes of the army. And for the smaller nations that still want to win, they will then develop new weapons... guns for example. Soon everyone has guns through trade and shit and then everyone will have it.

Then you have another problem... guns. Now everyone has em, you have to make newer weapons to stop THOSE weapons. Eventually war becomes long range and no one ever sees the other person and then missles and long range artillery take place of the soldier.

So really, you are back at square one in which you want to go back to Medieval fighting using iron or steel weapons because guns and tanks are a cheap way to win. But who cares about if it is cheap if you win. You get crap from other nations... nuke em :)

So because less people will do it, that will eliminate war? Well, let's just look at the era of peace that is medieval times...

Yep. Wars. Commoners going to wars. Rapin', pillagin', slaughterin', just more little ones instead of our large organized ones.

Furthermore the ease of use of guns is probably is an important factor that can prevent a mass holocaust of any particular ethnic group- I'll cite examples if you don't believe me.

now think about this.

Arrows can be blocked by a wooden sheild. Bullets you need a wall.
A Charging Knight can be taken down with arrows or with Pikes. how do you stop a flying bullet?
And all this time I thought that there was armor plating. I shall have to inform the militaries of the world that a number of the soldiers that they thought had been saved by bullet proof armour are, in fact, lying to them. Those tricky dead guys!
but the one thing you're missing is that for all the weapons of the olden days requires training to use properly. Guns, the Great Equalizer, don't, sure anyone can pick up a knife, sword, bow and try to use it, but a Gun is the easiest and simplest weapon to use and it can be use without showing yourself to your target.
You've never fired a gun, have you?
Guns require training, what guns equalize is muscle. You may be able to benchpress 500 pounds, but a shotgun will still stop you.
No, the easiest weapons to use are clubs.
you wanna kill a man, with a sword you have to go up to him and slice him. with a gun, heck, you don't need to leave your car, or home.
Maybe if my enemy is sitting across the street, but why in Hell would he be sitting there. Unless it was a clever attempt to get killed and escape this battle. Pistols have horrible aim, and the more precise/longer range guns can require an assload of training to properly site, maintain, etc. Further, I can make a sword or a spear out of raw (ie iron, wood, etc.) in my backyard. It will take time, but I can do it. Last time I checked, AK-47s are slightly more complicated.
Sniping a person with a bow or crossbow leaves the shooter with more risk than a sniper with a rifle.
No, actually when defending castles, archers would shoot through very small slits designed to minimize the chance that the other guy could shoot back. Further, the first shot with any weapon (if you take sufficient before hand preperation) can be done risk free. And with my (admittedly limited experience) in such things, I think that keeping secret long enough to fire again is easier with a bow. Guns have that whole noise thing, very bad for stealth.
want proof. go hunting with a bow and see how much harder it is than with a gun.
Hunting ain't war. Anyway, I thought the whole point was that death tolls were higher (and thus more horrible) back in the good old days of swords and bows. I also thought that your point was that killing people was just as difficult, but more personal back then. Maybe this would make more sense if I just quit thinking.

It'd be about the same, except it would just take longer to kill 100,000 people. :)
Yup. Never seemed to stop them before gunpowder.

if we still had wars where 100,000 men could die in a day i think that we would realise how point less wars can be...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_somme

close enough? and yet did we learn our lesson?

though i do kind of agree - inventing yet more and more efficient and ingenious ways of killing each other is bloody stupid

It'd be about the same, except it would just take longer to kill 100,000 people. :)

100,000 people have been killed in a day.

Timur Lane's army killed 100,000 civilians one day, the day he sacked Delhi.

My idea is that war is a constant thing that mankind uses to solve irreconcilable problems between groups of people. If anything, war has become more humane and less disastrous for people. In prehistoric times (and current/recent tribal low-technology conflict) death rates were 60-90% of the ENTIRE population of a group, civilisation and technology have minimised the death and destruction, such that now, where only 2000 American soldiers have died so far in the defeat of Iraq, out of a population of about 300 million, (6x10^-6 %) (0.000006%). Similar rates for Iraq (in terms of magnitude), even if say 100,000 (random guestimate ) Iraqis (of 26 million) have been killed , that is still only 0.0038% of the entire Iraqi population. Even the World Wars I & II pale in comparison to the entire world population. I hope you see my point

snip

i do...its a good point