War

Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Location
Round Rock, TX
I'm sorry, but I think I should be the first to say that you guys are a little bit too excited by war. There is nothing funny, exciting, or entertaining about war.

I forget who said this said:
Those who love war, clearly haven't seen it.
 
Validated Steam Engine
🌈 Beta Tester
✔️ HL Verified
💎Légéñdārý
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
667
Best answers
0
nge said:
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.
Funny.....going by the american army then today's wars are less skilled and more numerical. And by the way, a smaller group of skilled swordsmen could easily take out a bigger group of n00b swordsmen. So it is stil a question of skill. In any war it all boils down to numbers though, weither it is past or present.
 
Super Moderator
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
3,125
Best answers
0
Amnestometh said:
There is nothing funny, exciting, or entertaining about war.
I disagree. The best war was, is, and forever will be... The Star Wars trilogy. Thank you.
 
Validated Steam Engine
🌈 Beta Tester
✔️ HL Verified
💎Légéñdārý
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
667
Best answers
0
Well.....can't argue with that Opti. :p

And in Star Wars who always pwns? The Jedi, and they use melee. :p
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
1,714
Best answers
0
Location
Santa Cruz Mountains, California
Optimus Prime said:
I disagree. The best war was, is, and forever will be... The Star Wars trilogy. Thank you.
That and WWII, considering the biggest hit games are that. Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, Calll of Duty 2. So i guess, War is entertaining or else no one would have bought the games.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Feb 28, 2004
Messages
1,392
Best answers
0
FreeDoM said:
What is it good for?! Absolutely Nothin'!
Damn it! You beat me to it!



And no. The wars of old were a lot more savage and bloody.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,211
Best answers
0
KidBoy17 said:
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.
First of all it's glorified because we won.

Secondly ANYONE who said "It takes more guts blah blah blah" is bull****. If you tell me it takes more guts to take a mans LIFE with a sword than with a gun, I say you're ****in' insane. I can't even fathom myself taking the life away from someone. I can't believe anyone would ever consider any kind of war to take more guts than any other war. I don't care what would be in my hand, whether it be a sword, a gun, a knife, or a ****ing button to detonate a bomb. I'd have to live with the guilt knowing that I took someones life, that I killed. I couldn't live with that. I'd go insane.

Shiyojin Rommyu said:
:3 Which is why that quote's in my sig. <3
sorry I didn't see that. I tip my hat to you sir.

I find war to be pointless. You don't need to fight for peace. WWII is a different story, i feel what we did was the only way. But something like the war in iraq (and i don't mean to get into polital matters so it ends with my post hopefully) i fell that we didn't need to stoop to their level and go off and start killing people. We could have done something, and agreement. It wasn't necessary.

But to be more ontopic, war is war is war is war. It doesn't matter what you have in your hand. If you are in a war and you are fighting, you will kill someone. It doesn't matter how you kill them, the fact of the matter is, is you killed them. If someone shoved me into battle, i'd do 1 of 2 things. I'd hide until it's over, or hide and be found and be shot. War is for cowards.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
Fire Phoenix said:
First of all it's glorified because we won.

Secondly ANYONE who said "It takes more guts blah blah blah" is bull****. If you tell me it takes more guts to take a mans LIFE with a sword than with a gun, I say you're ****in' insane. I can't even fathom myself taking the life away from someone. I can't believe anyone would ever consider any kind of war to take more guts than any other war. I don't care what would be in my hand, whether it be a sword, a gun, a knife, or a ****ing button to detonate a bomb. I'd have to live with the guilt knowing that I took someones life, that I killed. I couldn't live with that. I'd go insane.

sorry I didn't see that. I tip my hat to you sir.
It's not so much the taking of the life itself as it is the actual usage of the weapon in question. It takes more 'guts' to go into battle with a sword and fight for your life and then watch the enemy's reaction to having it thrust into their chests/sides/etc. With a gun, one shot in the head from a few hundred feet away and they won't be moving very much afterwards. So, yes, from my personal view, it is 'easier' to fire a weapon than it is to engage in melee combat.
 
Validated Steam Engine
🌈 Beta Tester
✔️ HL Verified
💎Légéñdārý
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
667
Best answers
0
Actually, war is for asshats who want to try and get better political backing from it. Well....and for people who want power...both kinds of people suck.

Edit:

Smith| said:
It's not so much the taking of the life itself as it is the actual usage of the weapon in question. It takes more 'guts' to go into battle with a sword and fight for your life and then watch the enemy's reaction to having it thrust into their chests/sides/etc. With a gun, one shot in the head from a few hundred feet away and they won't be moving very much afterwards. So, yes, from my personal view, it is 'easier' to fire a weapon than it is to engage in melee combat.
Agreed. Take sniping for example, it doesn't take as much guts when the person doesn't even know you're there.

@FP

I know what you mean about the killing. I myself could never take a life but I can still understand that it would take more guts to walk up to within 6 feet of your enemy and fight in melee than it would to shoot them from behind cover over a large distance.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,211
Best answers
0
Smith| said:
It's not so much the taking of the life itself as it is the actual usage of the weapon in question. It takes more 'guts' to go into battle with a sword and fight for your life and then watch the enemy's reaction to having it thrust into their chests/sides/etc. With a gun, one shot in the head from a few hundred feet away and they won't be moving very much afterwards. So, yes, from my personal view, it is 'easier' to fire a weapon than it is to engage in melee combat.
See I disagree. Though I take it beyond the surface of what I'm holding. Pretend I'm it's the 1300's and I have a sword and shield in my hand. I go up to a guy and kill him. Okay, I just killed a guy. Great.
It's 1942, and I have a gun in my hand, a couple hundred feet away is a german (if any germans are insulted, please take note that I am german) I shoot the german in the head, he falls over, he's dead. I killed a guy. Great. In my perspective, killing is killing no matter what the form. I don't think it's so much as guts that determine what you use to kill a guy. But more so mental capacity. I couldn't do it. I just couldn't. A guy could kill my best friend or "explode" as Hitikori put it, but i couldn't bring myself to take a mans life.

For me it's just unfathomable. I don't know. I don't think guts really play a role. Back in the 1300's or whenever, a **** load of people put on helmets, swords, shields, and ran into battle.

Now in today's day and age.....thousands of people put on helmets, guns, grenades, and run into battle. I don't see it as anything other than sensless killing. Like for example, and i know this has nothing to do with war, that mitch guy who killed himself this month, i was depressed for about an hour or 2 last night thinking about it, not because i knew the guy (and i didn't) but because he took his life. I just, i can't imagine it.

Oh and i missed Cap J's response, so here is mine to you: Remember the alamo? Around 200 american soldiers won against a thousand or so soldeirs. I don't think numbers really matter.
 
Validated Steam Engine
🌈 Beta Tester
✔️ HL Verified
💎Légéñdārý
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
667
Best answers
0
Fire Phoenix said:
See I disagree. Though I take it beyond the surface of what I'm holding. Pretend I'm it's the 1300's and I have a sword and shield in my hand. I go up to a guy and kill him. Okay, I just killed a guy. Great.
It's 1942, and I have a gun in my hand, a couple hundred feet away is a german (if any germans are insulted, please take note that I am german) I shoot the german in the head, he falls over, he's dead. I killed a guy. Great. In my perspective, killing is killing no matter what the form. I don't think it's so much as guts that determine what you use to kill a guy. But more so mental capacity. I couldn't do it. I just couldn't. A guy could kill my best friend or "explode" as Hitikori put it, but i couldn't bring myself to take a mans life.

For me it's just unfathomable. I don't know. I don't think guts really play a role. Back in the 1300's or whenever, a **** load of people put on helmets, swords, shields, and ran into battle.

Now in today's day and age.....thousands of people put on helmets, guns, grenades, and run into battle. I don't see it as anything other than sensless killing. Like for example, and i know this has nothing to do with war, that mitch guy who killed himself this month, i was depressed for about an hour or 2 last night thinking about it, not because i knew the guy (and i didn't) but because he took his life. I just, i can't imagine it.

Oh and i missed Cap J's response, so here is mine to you: Remember the alamo? Around 200 american soldiers won against a thousand or so soldeirs. I don't think numbers really matter.
But you need to have guts to actually go out and face your enemy with the full knowledge that you may not walk away from it.

Ah, but that is also taking into consideration the defense, I was more thinking of just open field of battle. Plus, didn't they have guns? If it was just down to melee then they would have been slaughtered. Again, showing facing someone in melee takes more guts and skill than guns.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
1,929
Best answers
0
Fire Phoenix said:
See I disagree. Though I take it beyond the surface of what I'm holding. Pretend I'm it's the 1300's and I have a sword and shield in my hand. I go up to a guy and kill him. Okay, I just killed a guy. Great.
It's 1942, and I have a gun in my hand, a couple hundred feet away is a german (if any germans are insulted, please take note that I am german) I shoot the german in the head, he falls over, he's dead. I killed a guy. Great. In my perspective, killing is killing no matter what the form. I don't think it's so much as guts that determine what you use to kill a guy. But more so mental capacity. I couldn't do it. I just couldn't. A guy could kill my best friend or "explode" as Hitikori put it, but i couldn't bring myself to take a mans life.

For me it's just unfathomable. I don't know. I don't think guts really play a role. Back in the 1300's or whenever, a **** load of people put on helmets, swords, shields, and ran into battle.

Now in today's day and age.....thousands of people put on helmets, guns, grenades, and run into battle. I don't see it as anything other than sensless killing. Like for example, and i know this has nothing to do with war, that mitch guy who killed himself this month, i was depressed for about an hour or 2 last night thinking about it, not because i knew the guy (and i didn't) but because he took his life. I just, i can't imagine it.

Oh and i missed Cap J's response, so here is mine to you: Remember the alamo? Around 200 american soldiers won against a thousand or so soldeirs. I don't think numbers really matter.
But when you're fighting in melee, you've got your opposition screaming and spitting in your face, adding a lot of emotion to it. We just see it too differently, I suppose. You see it as death, and death alone. I see it as the method to the death.
 
Lost in space
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,211
Best answers
0
Smith| said:
But when you're fighting in melee, you've got your opposition screaming and spitting in your face, adding a lot of emotion to it. We just see it too differently, I suppose. You see it as death, and death alone. I see it as the method to the death.
Exactly. That pretty much sums it up. I don't care how far away i am, whether I'm 2 feet getting spit on, or 500 yards with a sniper.

But I agree with Cap J on what he said: But you need to have guts to actually go out and face your enemy with the full knowledge that you may not walk away from it.

That I agree with. But I don't think it takes guts to defend your life. I find that to be more instinct than guts.
 
Validated Steam Engine
🌈 Beta Tester
✔️ HL Verified
💎Légéñdārý
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
667
Best answers
0
Fire Phoenix said:
That I agree with. But I don't think it takes guts to defend your life. I find that to be more instinct than guts.
True but we are more refering to actually going out and facing people more than being forced into fighting.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
1,043
Best answers
0
Battles of old were chaos. Your enemy's face was probably behind a helm, first of all, removing more of that personal stuff you guys keep talking about. Everything was swinging and banging all around you. If you hit someone, you don't have time to reflect on the morality of war and life and death. If you do that, you die, it's a MELEE. You have time to make sure he's dead, make sure your weapon isn't stuck in him, and maybe look up to catch the random spearhead coming for your face. I don't think it really takes "guts." In a situation like that, you don't have time to think. Swing, swing, survive. A sniper on the other hand has time to think as he zooms in on somebody's head.

Whatever though, I guess it's all opinion and conjecture. And there are multiple arguments here that I'm too tired to now address (which takes more guts, which takes more skill, which was more "honorable" etc. etc.) so forget it :yes:
 
Moving with Sonic Speed
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
4,534
Best answers
0
I prefer melee combat only on the grounds that it improves you physically, and it would probably prove more 'fair' in mano a mano combat, but as hito stated, it doesn't matter in war. Life is not lord of the rings, or we three kings, or samurai champloo, let alone dragonball Z. Not everybody is a bruce lee, and I haven't seen the Punisher or Rambo galavanting around Iraq lately. Bruce Willis is not here with his 800 round Beretta, and there are no stealth ninjas taking out legions of al Qaeda subordinates (save of course for the few navy seals behind enemy lines). In real life, when it comes to guns or swords, in a chaotic situation, assuming you are not the first one dead, you are allowed to make a strike. If you're hidden it probably gives away your position, if you're out in the open it probably leaves you vulnarable to counter attack, and if you somehow manage to quite thoroughly succeed in your endeavor, presuming your rifle has not jammed, your sword is not wedged, and you have not panicked from being surrounded by men on the field, you may survive just long enough to defend yourself against another strike. Provided you survive that, and that no one is behind you in all of this chaos taking sight of you, and that your friend didn't knock your weapon lose or blind you with debris from the ricochet off of the wall next to you, it's plausible that you could attempt a counter-assault, assuming you have not somehow been injured or temporarily blinded by an explosion, or pushed backwards by a body wearing 150 pounds of plate falling towards you.

You get what I'm saying, right? Even if every blow you delivered was lethal, there are too many men on the battlefield for your tallents to matter. If you're on the front line you'll eventually get hit by a bullet or a spear, maybe even an arrow, or defend yourself until you become physically exhausted and *then* get smashed. It's only more personal in melee in that you feel your sword rip into somebody, but to get into the melee mindset you can't really view your opponents as people anyway, so I'd imagine those soldiers didn't feel too much different about cleaving off a head than we do about blowing one up. Doesn't matter if you're William Wallace meets Bruce Lee, you're not coming out unharmed unless God shines down a miracle upon your head or you're on the side with 10x the men. That, or your opponents are so poorly armed and armored that they'd need a prayer to survive long enough to protect themselves. The bottom line is that either approach is reasonably similar, although your inevitable destruction might be more *obvious* looking at a charging group of heavy cavalry then it is looking at blinking lights through smoke. Yes, there are ninjas, and yes, there are snipers, and navy seals, but those are not what make up the bulk of our wars, and they're usually used in situations involving smaller numbers. It's the same state of mind when you rush into a frenzy of gunfire as it is when you charge into a wall of sharp shiny metal.
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
397
Best answers
0
i would much rather go into war with swords and shields, i know where my enemies are and i can see them coming for me. Like someone said earlier, in todays wars you have no idea where the attacks can come from or even what they will look like, heck even the AIR can become your enemy, it takes guts to fight those odds.
 
New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
520
Best answers
0
going into war is the same thing now as it was back then, think about it. you go out with swords and get mashed by a couple thousand troops. battles werent like everyone thinks where some super soldier in white armor and a white horse would ride down the battlefeild slaying 20 people before reaching the enemy base and winning the war. it was rush in and slash as many people as u could. to me, if anything, that takes less skill. what i think most of you are talking about is dueling. there is a complete difference between dueling and war. War takes groups, large numbers which will result in a general rush when it comes to swords and sheilds, dueling is where you would see your enemies face before the fight and have time to think about it, and i actually have to disagree with Cap J on his opinion on "But you need to have guts to actually go out and face your enemy with the full knowledge that you may not walk away from it." because when you go out to any war, you have that knowledge, do you think the troops in iraq dont have those worries everyday? well if u do, then you didnt make it seem like u knew that with that post. since you seem to be putting less though into gun fighting and more into sword dueling, and yes i say dueling because thats what most of you are talking about, although u may think you mean war, its not. you have to cosnider the fact that in firefights its alot more scary, you dont know where your gonna get hit from, and you sure as hell dont wanna try and check because if you do u could get blasted by a stray bullet. in a midevil war, you had the same problem but arrows dont fire as fast as a gun, and they dont go nearly as fast, so you could check and with a little more assurance. although many people think gun wars are less gutsy in my opinion they take more guts. some people may argue "what about snipers theyre teh ***" but think about it, if ur a sniper and u know theres another sniper somewhere out there in the battlefield, and ur also incharge of covering you fellow teamates, then u have quite a problem on your hands dont you? since you need to provide cover fire and not give away your position. sure nowadays we have powerful bombs and weapons that can kill multiple people with less effort, but if u think about it, there were also trebuchets(sp?) in midevil wars, which took out multiple people with one boulder, which is a similar concept as a bomb,please not i said SIMILAR, not the same, and they are similar in the fact that they both take out multiple enemies with one "shot/explosion" so to say that midevil wars took more guts is something u need to think about more imo, because alot of people posting here are reffering to duels and not wars. war is something far more different then a duel, since war is based on team skill, and duels are based on personal skill, sure u can have 5 skilled swordsman,but if theyre going up against 30-40 other people, wether their "n00b" soldiers or not, the sheer amounts of them would overrun the swordsman and defeat them, especially if the 5 swordsmen dont use teamwork and the "n00bs" do, and thats what wars back then were mostly based on, there were other factors such as point of attack and timing, aswell as many others but thats generally how they went down. also just to say ,a duel is a duel. wether sword or gun, its hard, in firefights u have to think fast and be fast,since the weapon is faster (bullets) and aiming a gun under pressure and firing isnt as easy as everyone thinks. Recoil can screw u over fast, aswell as not aiming properly, anyone whos fired a real gun before would know what im talking about. so in my opinion even in duels, it takes more guts to go in there with a gun then a sword. sword fights just look fancy, and kool. but in firefights theres usually nothing too fancy about it. its brutal fast paced fighting, and takes alot of self control to come out of as a victor, although i will admit that a stray bullet can win u the fight. but so could a lucky throw of your sword, or a lucky rock on the ground, which causes your enemy to tumble and loose his balance. anything like that. a faulty shield, a poorly made sword. there are tons of places where luck can win u the duel, but overall i think id be more scared going into a firefight then a swordfight.
 

Bolteh2

B
Guest
War has been childish ever since the first conflict started.. It's always been like we know it today.. Only difference back then was that there were rules each side had to hold themselfs to.. Back then, people had respect for the cause of the other, they understood why they were fighting/opposing them.. These days we just set out minds at some objective and pull open ye olde can of whoopass and dirty tricks (clusterbombing, anyone?) and we have a conflict.

Back then, soldiers won the war.. These days, nobody wins a war, we only end up with whole nations laying in ashes.


But, if I had to choose, I'd pick melee combat over any other form of combat.. Melee battles rely on skill, and not the firepower of the tool you're wielding.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
War is and will always be a part of human civilization. Where ever, whenever, people will find an excuse to attack each other. Be it power or the thought of doing right, it will never go away.

World peace is a fairy tale.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom