Poll: Would you join the army if there weren't guns?

[demoman_chaos]

Yes, randomly being picked off by some untrained fool doesn't sound appealing.

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

Absolutly wrong. In a sword fight, the better man always wins. A skilled fighter will always beat a toddler. With guns, a toddler could easily kill him.

If you think numbers are most important, look at Thermopylae. The 7,000 greeks held back a Persian army numbering between 200,000 and 500,000 (according to some sources). Good positioning and superior equipment are very important. There is a reason soldiers wore heavy armor. A horde of knife wielders will fall before 1 knight in full plate.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Would I join, sure. But I'd much rather be a PMC. Than I can chose rather to fight for someone or not.

Though I see a flaw in that we still have cars. Since they were not an invention of war like say the jet engine was. So you could just attach blades to the sides and spikes to the front and just go demolition derby style on your enemy? They though of doing it with a chariot over 4000 years ago so we would to.

 

[sivlin]

So. Instead of dying quick from a bullet to the head; you die slowly from a missing leg and arm - bleeding out among a sea of other mangled corpses. While I like the skill aspect of swords compared to modern weapons - Guns are cleaner. Also, without modern weapons MORE wars would happen making the military an even more dangerous profession.

For anyone who hasn't taken strategic weapons courses: Nuclear weapons actually only serve to PREVENT war. Not a single country has used a nuclear weapon since the inception of nuclear weapons at Nagasaki and Hiroshima and no full scale wars have been fought since that time. The cost of doing so is too great.

 

[pumuckl]

i'd LOVE to join the army with swords! no screw swords, axes. i always said that if i ever find out i have a specific time to live, i'm going to find a bunch of fellow cancer patients and stage a fake war with swords and bows and such so i can die with honor and go to Valhalla

but seriously, there's something so much more honorable about looking you're opponent in the eye as you kill him, rather then looking through a tiny scope, a few hundred yards away. hand to hand armies would be hysterical though, the whole world's politics would just end up looking like the WWE

 

[pumuckl]

So. Instead of dying quick from a bullet to the head; you die slowly from a missing leg and arm - bleeding out among a sea of other mangled corpses. While I like the skill aspect of swords compared to modern weapons - Guns are cleaner. Also, without modern weapons MORE wars would happen making the military an even more dangerous profession.

For anyone who hasn't taken strategic weapons courses: Nuclear weapons actually only serve to PREVENT war. Not a single country has used a nuclear weapon since the inception of nuclear weapons at Nagasaki and Hiroshima and no full scale wars have been fought since that time. The cost of doing so is too great.

... full scale war? full scale wars don't exist anymore. there are still hundreds of wars that take place every year since the inception of the nuke. and nuclear warheads have been dropped just not nearly at the scale they're capable of.

 

[Dr Jones]

No chance in hell. I am not a fighter. Though if we had no guns i would without a doubt start buying swords and training.

What if there were no weapons at all? What is soldiers had to be skilled diplomats and fighting was done with words? That's a world I'd like to live in.

Then we wouldnt need soldiers or an army.

and nuclear warheads have been dropped just not nearly at the scale they're capable of.

Nope. You are wrong. NO nukes have been dropped (unless you count test nukes in Nevada, though i cant remember when exactly that was (50'ies?)) since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you dont believe me then google it.

 

[Lyiat]

Y

Yes, randomly being picked off by some untrained fool doesn't sound appealing.

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

Absolutly wrong. In a sword fight, the better man always wins. A skilled fighter will always beat a toddler. With guns, a toddler could easily kill him.

If you think numbers are most important, look at Thermopylae. The 7,000 greeks held back a Persian army numbering between 200,000 and 500,000 (according to some sources). Good positioning and superior equipment are very important. There is a reason soldiers wore heavy armor. A horde of knife wielders will fall before 1 knight in full plate.

Yeah, guess what? I can give random ten people bills and tell them to stand in a line and point the pointy end forward and thrust it at anyone who comes near them. Then you can go dress up in full plate armor and try to kill them. I don't care if you studied the sword your entire life. Its NOT going to happen.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

God no. The tactics used in the middle ages resulted in horrific mortality rates. Check the casualty rates of the victors during various battles of the 100 Years War. There are battles where the winning side pulled loses of over 20%. That's a 1 in 5 chance you would die if you won. The losing side could lose around 90%.

 

[Dr Jones]

Yeah, guess what? I can give random ten people bills and tell them to stand in a line and point the pointy end forward and thrust it at anyone who comes near them. Then you can go dress up in full plate armor and try to kill them. I don't care if you studied the sword your entire life. Its NOT going to happen.

There really are way too many factors that decide wether a skilled fighter will be able to defeat an armored unskilled fighter.

Both of you are right and wrong. In the end it can't be calculated. It's like calculating a Soccer players performance before a match. Too many factors go into it. You can't ever figure it out.

 

[sivlin]

So. Instead of dying quick from a bullet to the head; you die slowly from a missing leg and arm - bleeding out among a sea of other mangled corpses. While I like the skill aspect of swords compared to modern weapons - Guns are cleaner. Also, without modern weapons MORE wars would happen making the military an even more dangerous profession.

For anyone who hasn't taken strategic weapons courses: Nuclear weapons actually only serve to PREVENT war. Not a single country has used a nuclear weapon since the inception of nuclear weapons at Nagasaki and Hiroshima and no full scale wars have been fought since that time. The cost of doing so is too great.

... full scale war? full scale wars don't exist anymore. there are still hundreds of wars that take place every year since the inception of the nuke. and nuclear warheads have been dropped just not nearly at the scale they're capable of.

This is incorrect. Nukes have been tested, sure. The only documented cases of a nuclear weapon being used on a combatant are the two initial test runs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Full scale wars don't exist anymore BECAUSE of Nuclear Weapons. "Wars" exist such as the war on terror that the United States has been fighting since 2001. But compared to wars of the past, these are insignificant when comparing loss of life.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

I'd rather be shot in the face with an AK-47 than stabbed repeatedly with a blunt stick.
Just sayin'.

 

[Lyiat]

Yeah, guess what? I can give random ten people bills and tell them to stand in a line and point the pointy end forward and thrust it at anyone who comes near them. Then you can go dress up in full plate armor and try to kill them. I don't care if you studied the sword your entire life. Its NOT going to happen.

There really are way too many factors that decide wether a skilled fighter will be able to defeat an armored unskilled fighter.

Both of you are right and wrong. In the end it can't be calculated. It's like calculating a Soccer players performance before a match. Too many factors go into it. You can't ever figure it out.

But thats the thing, I can figure it out. There is a group called the SCA, the Society for Creative Anachronism. In all events where a side has a number advantage, regardless of the skill of individual men or even entire units, the side with numbers typically wins.

We've seen Knights (our equivalent of black belts) go against groups of people alone. He cannot win against more than three people at once, especially if they have polearms. It literally just doesn't happen, unless he manages to get into a situation where he can fight them one at a time. If you've even given them rudimentary drilling, they will know that and stick to a battline, making an impenetrable defense against the one soldier. Especially if they have polearms.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I'd join regardless of if there were guns or swords, now if they'd let me join is another issue entirely. Guess that's why I prefer the 1940s era US military, asperger syndrome hadn't been discovered yet so I'd have no problem.

 

[lizards]

what difference does it make? your still killing people and i dont see why its different to use a sword as oposed to an assult rifle

 

[Dr Jones]

But thats the thing, I can figure it out. There is a group called the SCA, the Society for Creative Anachronism. In all events where a side has a number advantage, regardless of the skill of individual men or even entire units, the side with numbers typically wins.

We've seen Knights (our equivalent of black belts) go against groups of people alone. He cannot win against more than three people at once, especially if they have polearms. It literally just doesn't happen, unless he manages to get into a situation where he can fight them one at a time. If you've even given them rudimentary drilling, they will know that and stick to a battline, making an impenetrable defense against the one soldier. Especially if they have polearms.

So your point is that if we have 1 soldier against an army he will lose? First: The stronger side will NEVER EVER EVER EVER make an impenetrable defense against 1 soldier. I am just saying that it isnt just numbers. Skill, unlike what you believe is also incredibly important. Swords are not just a thing of the random. Skill is 90% of it.

what difference does it make? your still killing people and i dont see why its different to use a sword as oposed to an assult rifle

Swords dont end up getting you killed from some camper 1km away

 

[Thaluikhain]

But thats the thing, I can figure it out. There is a group called the SCA, the Society for Creative Anachronism. In all events where a side has a number advantage, regardless of the skill of individual men or even entire units, the side with numbers typically wins.

We've seen Knights (our equivalent of black belts) go against groups of people alone. He cannot win against more than three people at once, especially if they have polearms. It literally just doesn't happen, unless he manages to get into a situation where he can fight them one at a time. If you've even given them rudimentary drilling, they will know that and stick to a battline, making an impenetrable defense against the one soldier. Especially if they have polearms.

So your point is that if we have 1 soldier against an army he will lose? First: The stronger side will NEVER EVER EVER EVER make an impenetrable defense against 1 soldier. I am just saying that it isnt just numbers. Skill, unlike what you believe is also incredibly important. Swords are not just a thing of the random. Skill is 90% of it.

I'd disagree with that. IMHO, it's not so much skill, as discipline and cohesion. The most important thing the soldiers need to learn is to stay in formation and not run.

Re-enactor examples don't count because everyone involved knows they aren't going to get hurt. In a real battle between shieldwalls, the battle ends when one side or the other breaks and runs, and that's when the killing really starts.

 

[lizards]

But thats the thing, I can figure it out. There is a group called the SCA, the Society for Creative Anachronism. In all events where a side has a number advantage, regardless of the skill of individual men or even entire units, the side with numbers typically wins.

We've seen Knights (our equivalent of black belts) go against groups of people alone. He cannot win against more than three people at once, especially if they have polearms. It literally just doesn't happen, unless he manages to get into a situation where he can fight them one at a time. If you've even given them rudimentary drilling, they will know that and stick to a battline, making an impenetrable defense against the one soldier. Especially if they have polearms.

So your point is that if we have 1 soldier against an army he will lose? First: The stronger side will NEVER EVER EVER EVER make an impenetrable defense against 1 soldier. I am just saying that it isnt just numbers. Skill, unlike what you believe is also incredibly important. Swords are not just a thing of the random. Skill is 90% of it.

what difference does it make? your still killing people and i dont see why its different to use a sword as oposed to an assult rifle

Swords dont end up getting you killed from some camper 1km away

and are you saying guns dont require skill?

and no they dont get you killed from a kilo away, you just get stabbed in the back when your squareing off with someone

 

[kimba_lion]

so basically ur asking if we would still fight with swords, shields, arrow, catapults... etc

i would but we would need significant training to learn how the ancestors did it back in the day but we would still have google so we could just look it up right??