War

New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
1,714
Best answers
0
Right now, our wars consist of guns and bombs that fire when you push a button. Before guns and bombs were invented, there were swords, shields raw man power. You had to face your enemy and give everything you had or be run through with a sword.

So my question is this: Is the wars of today more "hardcore", "manly", "savage", or whatever you want to call it, or the wars of the ages?

I say the wars of the ages are better. If I could, I would go back then to fight in those wars instead of ours. Ours seem more pansy because all you really have to do is push a button, you don't have to go up to your enemy and club them to death.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
4,022
Best answers
0
No, I agree with KidBoy. It doesn't take a genius to pull a trigger, but to handle a sword in both offense and defense is really quite an art form, if done right. That's why I prefer bladed weapons over basically any projectile weapon.

Wars nowadays aren't exciting, aren't bad ass like they used to be.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 15, 2001
Messages
1,009
Best answers
0
The war of times gone past were definitely better. You were more in control of whether you lived or died, because that was often determined by the amount of skill with a sword you had.
Nowadays there are just way too many variables on the battle field. Snipers, mines, bombing runs.

I miss the good ole days :(

EDIT: Yep, any fool with a gun kill somebody. But to duke it out and melee and still come out on top, now that's something.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
1,714
Best answers
0
Whats funny about this, is even in games I respect people who use melee weapons over projectiles anyday. I find myself using melee weapons more and more.
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
4,628
Best answers
0
No war is a good war.

Guns, swords, arrows, sticks/clubs, whatever = killing

killing = bad

Nowadays war could be seen as less honourable, as stated, any bloody idiot can pull a trigger. Swords and other melee weapons are a much more defined measurement of skill, however some people can still train every day with their rifle and be amazing, but the thing here is john smith could still kill him if he shot first. In a way they are both the same, both rely on training, experience and chance, its just there is a lot more chances in a sword fight where the defender can do something about the attack, you cant really dodge or counter attack a bullet =\.
 
Senior Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Feb 6, 2002
Messages
1,675
Best answers
0
Past wars depended on your soldiers numbers and skill.

Today's wars depend on your ability to manage resources and strategize.

Pick you poison.
 
New Member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
420
Best answers
0
I agree with Kama. Both forms of warfare take skill, just in different areas. The wars in days gone by were certainly more brutal though.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,211
Best answers
0
I don't find either to be "manly"

If war to you is just "a push of a button" i think less and less people would be killed. Had it been that simple, why not just drop a bomb via an air plane, come back to the U.S and push a button then.

I don't find any war to be manly. It takes a brave man to pick up a sword, but an even braver man to put it down. I forgot the name of the person who said this, but it's words to live by.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
4,022
Best answers
0
Fire Phoenix said:
I don't find any war to be manly. It takes a brave man to pick up a sword, but an even braver man to put it down. I forgot the name of the person who said this, but it's words to live by.
:3 Which is why that quote's in my sig. <3

But you have to admit - sword fights are usually more enjoyable to watch, because there is generally more skill involved.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
No one war is better than the other, to say so would prove no point, let alone not make sense. War has been fought the same way for as long as man has existed, and nothing has changed except for the tools which rage it.

On the topic of weapons, once again, no weapon is better than the other if the user does not know how to use it. A sword can be just as deadly as a gun if it is in the hands of a trained person. It's not how easy or how hard it is to learn how to use a weapon, it is merely how one goes about using that knowledge. If I were to pick a random person who doesn't know how to use a gun or any weapon for that matter, and give him a gun, and I have a sword, I could easily beat the person. Why? Unlike the other person, I know how to use the weapon I was given.

Sure he might know what a gun is, and it's function, but he does not properly know how to use it, while I know how to use a sword. Just a quick note, my example was completely hypothetical.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
I say before the marvels of technology were uncovered, War took a lot more guts. Today, it's just pulling a trigger or pushing a button, the latter of which doesn't require you to even see your enemy and as such, removes much of the guilt incurred.
 
New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
742
Best answers
0
Stop glorifying it. War is war. It matters not if you fire lead or lob off someone's head with an axe.

Besides, the brutality of mideval weapons only places emphasis on the fact that YOU DIDN'T GO AND COME BACK FROM WARS. Most of the time, when you swung a sword and killed someone, maybe 2 or 3 people, but eventually, you would soon get killed as well...

If you think wars were really fought like in King Arthur, you're sadly mistaken. There weren't really a lot of "heroes" like that.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
Wolf Devil said:
Stop glorifying it. War is war. It matters not if you fire lead or lob off someone's head with an axe.

Besides, the brutality of mideval weapons only places emphasis on the fact that YOU DIDN'T GO AND COME BACK FROM WARS. Most of the time, when you swung a sword and killed someone, maybe 2 or 3 people, but eventually, you would soon get killed as well...

If you think wars were really fought like in King Arthur, you're sadly mistaken. There weren't really a lot of "heroes" like that.
Did I say that there were? No. I simply said it took more guts to actually go and face your enemy down like that. I didn't say one man kills 4000 other men and comes back with a broken pinky toe.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
1,714
Best answers
0
No Im talking about the wars that Alexander the Great did or the Crusades that took place. I'm talking about the wars that meant something. i know war isn't to be glorified(even though we glorify WWII with games) but wars that consist of swords and such should be at least honored for the bravery. As stated before, it takes guts to wield a sword.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
3,608
Best answers
0
One thing is for sure, wars from the early times really did leave a bigger pile of bodies around the place simply because more people recruited for an army back then & they also had bigger numbers. There would be a bigger stench of death in the air too.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
1,043
Best answers
0
When you're on the front line with a sword and the shield, charging against a similar force of several thousand men, you aren't in control of anything. Block a stab, maybe hit someone over the head, and then some guy behind the guy you're looking at stabs you in the neck with a pike. GG.

And btw, you're telling me it doesn't take guts to walk into a field of combat where you can be blown up by all kinds of things out of your control? Snipers, landmines, artillery, aircraft, disguised civilians, armored vehicles?

I'll agree there can be a lot less guilt involved for modern soldiers. And yet at the same time, modern culture and values might offset that for some since people have a much more negative view of war and killing.

What saves you in modern combat and determines "skill" is your ability at choosing cover, tactics, and your ability to keep a cool head despite the fact that your friend's head just EXPLODED and there are loud noises all around you, etc. etc. Back in the day it was your skill with a sword, but that only goes so far in a massive melee of death. If you wanna talk about DUELING or something, yeah, swords definitely were more honorable/skillful than say, a quickdraw duel. But war? Doesn't make much difference.
 

Random

R
Guest
Maybe its not as "Manly" but if it has less risk and I higher kill rate. It seems smarter to me. They probably care more about safeguarding thier own life alot better then someone's view that its not as manly or strong. Most of us would do the same in that situation. But when it comes down to it, It's always people killing people....nothing manly about that. Kind of funny to watch sometimes though.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
Hitokiri said:
And btw, you're telling me it doesn't take guts to walk into a field of combat where you can be blown up by all kinds of things out of your control? Snipers, landmines, artillery, aircraft, disguised civilians, armored vehicles?
Smith| said:
Did I say that there were? No. I simply said it took more guts to actually go and face your enemy down like that. I didn't say one man kills 4000 other men and comes back with a broken pinky toe.
=P. .
 

nge

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
464
Best answers
0
Guys, look. I can present loaded situations, too-

"Any bum with a knife can shank someone, but only a truly skilled marksman/tactiction could advance on a fortified position with precision timeing, teamwork/coordination, and skill behind the trigger."

They're both forms of fighting, albiet different forms. A leathal weapon can kill a person regardless of the user, but there is always an amount of skill behind it. The best Marines/SEALS/Elites from other countries will always impress me more than the best swoardsman/ninja/samurai/whatever.

Old warfare was not, to me anyways, impressive in the least. It was stupid. Dumb people run at eachother with various blades, and guys in the back shoot them with arrows. It's more numerical and less tactical/"skilled" than warfare today. There is only so much one guy with a sword can do, but a man with a gun/proper intel/tactical manipulation, even with or without immediate backup, is a potential force to be reckoned with.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top