If wars were still fought with blade and shield...

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Imagine if the world today, somehow still ended up just as advanced and technological, still resorted to blades and medieval equivalent tools of war, you can come up with how technological and futuristic these weapons would be (as they probably wouldn't still be made of iron and steel) but ultimately, wars were still fought with the same melee dependent tactics and formations. As for related topical question... how would these weapons look and act, and do you see yourself being a more militaristic person because of it?

I think i'd actually interested in joining the military if this was the case. I don't shy away from shooting games but the idea of being there one moment and being gone in the slight pull of a trigger and a bullet ripping through your head seems so... I don't know, pointless. It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

At least with a sword n shield it seems pretty equal on both sides of the fight.

LAZAR SWORDS!!!

More seriously it would require nations who are going to keep an army to have a lot more physical training. I imagine that formations would be far more sophisticated. Probably some kind of composite armor and blade combo. I have no idea how that would work. Without the equalizer of bullets I suppose a lot of emphasis would be put on a nation being able to field very muscular men.

Would be interesting. Probably would have some very different societies.

DugMachine:
It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

I think its the nice thing about guns.

I would take a bullet to the dome over laying in a field slow bleeding out from a massive gash on my shoulder any day.

Wars would be a lot bloodier and fought between a lot more people.

We'd have many more deaths on each side.

Light sabers?

In any case, the battles would be extremely gory and much more painful for participants. I wouldn't be any MORE inclined to join the military. I think the battles would be more exciting, more adrenalin because your natural warrior instincts would kick in. Not like a tense gun battle, where you have to keep a massive distance between you and the enemy.

Jaeke:
Imagine if the world today, somehow still ended up just as advanced and technological, still resorted to blades and medieval equivalent tools of war, you can come up with how technological and futuristic these weapons would be (as they probably wouldn't still be made of iron and steel) but ultimately, wars were still fought with the same melee dependent tactics and formations. As for related topical question... how would these weapons look and act, and do you see yourself being a more militaristic person because of it?

Then Gears of War and Killzone and most first person shooters would be praised for their ingenuitive ability to depict war with a long stick that releases sharp metal destructible implements from the end of said stick and forcibly becoming lodged within peoples orifices and membranes.

Basically: Lord of the Rings probably wouldn't have existed because swords and shields would have been boring and military shooters would be the big deal.

OT: I could imagine a rapid fire crossbow with explosive ends that detonate upon impact, and still, I don't think I have a lot of creativity behind that idea, it's just an idea. That's keeping with the medievel theme, because someone already ninja'd "Lazer Swords".

Redlin5:
LAZAR SWORDS!!!

Told ya.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

DugMachine:
It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

I think its the nice thing about guns.

I would take a bullet to the dome over laying in a field slow bleeding out from a massive gash on my shoulder any day.

I probably worded my post wrong. Dying quickly can be a good thing in war but I mean, with guns, you usually don't expect the impact or the fact that you're gonna die. With swords its you and your opponent, in a life or death struggle trying to best one another and though you may lose, at least you'll know why.

With guns, you can not be paying attention to the left side of the battlefield and some random guy catches you off guard and just puts one in your temple and BOOM, you're done. But that's just the way i've always thought of it.

Just imagine the amount of prosthetic we'd need. Sure we have a-lot of soldiers that lose limbs but that's mostly because of explosions and them being damaged beyond the point of no return.

The next evolution is warfare is obviously Zoid battles.

Too badass.

DugMachine:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

DugMachine:
It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

I think its the nice thing about guns.

I would take a bullet to the dome over laying in a field slow bleeding out from a massive gash on my shoulder any day.

I probably worded my post wrong. Dying quickly can be a good thing in war but I mean, with guns, you usually don't expect the impact or the fact that you're gonna die. With swords its you and your opponent, in a life or death struggle trying to best one another and though you may lose, at least you'll know why.

With guns, you can not be paying attention to the left side of the battlefield and some random guy catches you off guard and just puts one in your temple and BOOM, you're done. But that's just the way i've always thought of it.

I'm fairly sure the majority of people who get shot actually take quite a long time to die (as long as they don't get hit anywhere vital like the heart, a major artery, or certain parts of the brain).

OT: wars are essentially pissing contests between nations to try and subdue the will of others, so I'd just dedicate an unused continent (Antarctica) to nations with any disputes. They ship their troops over there, and they are allowed to kill each other within a designated area.

Probably wouldn't work in most cases, but fighting in civilian areas is just stupid. And also, I want to ride a goddamn polar bear into battle.

Light sabers, light sabers, light sabers.

I'd predict a more or less violent society. Maybe people would be less keen on war, knowing that they'll have to see, up close, the kill, or maybe soldiers would get used to it, and become rather violent men, more violent than is the nature of a soldier.

Chain swords. Your points are invalid when I can make a chainsaw into a motherfucking sword, bros.

So we will get weapons like these?


Awesome!

I guessing the militery would have a swordmen/ melee division and it could be more demanding for the men to keep in top phyiscal shape if they want to be a skilled swordmen compare to a gunmen.
Oh god, Japan would still have ninja and samurai if this happen!

War would be much harder, bloodier and less useful.. and I wouldn't even want to be anywhere near it..

I mean swordsmen take much longer to train then gunners and so we'd probably end up with a knightly class and loads of common average people given a spear and drafted into mass battles of slaughter..

Lucky I'm descended from knights then, I'm still young, I can still be a knight

I'm getting in before the rest of you and grabbing a castle, come get me with your swords and spears I've got boiling fucking oil.

Captcha: under the sea - yes Captcha thats an even better idea

Amethyst Wind:
Wars would be a lot bloodier and fought between a lot more people.

We'd have many more deaths on each side.

I would like to politely disagree with you on that. In war, most of the deaths come from heavy artillery, bombs, etc. It is why later wars in history like WW1 and WW2 had an enormous amount of casualties compared to wars in previous history, and most of those were caused by artillery and bombs.

OT: If wars were fought with swords and shields, I would probably view the military the same way. However, I would be way less likely to join it (though it is already slim to none) because this dilemma: that is morally easier (for me) to kill someone the easier it is to detach myself from it. I would much rather kill 50 by dropping a bomb from a plane a mile in the air, than personally kill one person in hand to hand combat (negating the obvious safety reasons).

Well with industrialization and total war plus the lack of discouragement from the destruction resulting from nuclear and strategic arms I'd say we'd be looking at the downfall of human civilization.

Rakun Man:

Amethyst Wind:
Wars would be a lot bloodier and fought between a lot more people.

We'd have many more deaths on each side.

I would like to politely disagree with you on that. In war, most of the deaths come from heavy artillery, bombs, etc. It is why later wars in history like WW1 and WW2 had an enormous amount of casualties compared to wars in previous history, and most of those were caused by artillery and bombs.

OT: If wars were fought with swords and shields, I would probably view the military the same way. However, I would be way less likely to join it (though it is already slim to none) because this dilemma: that is morally easier (for me) to kill someone the easier it is to detach myself from it. I would much rather kill 50 by dropping a bomb from a plane a mile in the air, than personally kill one person in hand to hand combat (negating the obvious safety reasons).

i was going to say on what planet? I guess on He-man world where swords can fly and have minds of their own

This sounds exciting. Give me a spear, a shield, a bastard sword, and some chainmail, and let me fight! Being left-handed, I'd have something of an advantage.

Stilt:

i was going to say on what planet? I guess on He-man world where swords can fly and have minds of their own

Nice avatar...

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

DugMachine:
It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

I think its the nice thing about guns.

I would take a bullet to the dome over laying in a field slow bleeding out from a massive gash on my shoulder any day.

Tell that to a heavy machine gun round to the wrist the hydrostatic shock from which will drag the blood out of your heart suffocating you to death.

Guns are not nice things in the slightest.

Hoplon:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

DugMachine:
It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

I think its the nice thing about guns.

I would take a bullet to the dome over laying in a field slow bleeding out from a massive gash on my shoulder any day.

Tell that to a heavy machine gun round to the wrist the hydrostatic shock from which will drag the blood out of your heart suffocating you to death.

Guns are not nice things in the slightest.

Nicer than swords, axes or *shudder* morning stars.

I suspect we would see a lot less of them. It negates a lot of the advantages more powerful countries have, so you wouldn't see as many wars. The US can go in and topple a government with only a few thousand soldiers lost, and it provoked a major backlash. Losing the technology advantage or diminishing it that much means that you're likely to lose millions in every major engagement, meaning that it would almost be impossible to declare a war for any reason other than imminent destruction of your country.

That being said, I think it would be much more honorable to be a soldier in those circumstances. I don't see how there is any honor in dropping bombs on a city from a remote-controlled drone while you are sitting comfortably in a base. If you have to really risk your life and get up close and personal with everyone you fight, you won't be able to see your enemies and simply numbers.

MammothBlade:
This sounds exciting. Give me a spear, a shield, a bastard sword, and some chainmail, and let me fight! Being left-handed, I'd have something of an advantage.

Stilt:

i was going to say on what planet? I guess on He-man world where swords can fly and have minds of their own

Nice avatar...

BBW making your PPH? HH

So basically Warhammer 40,000? Sweet.

The thing is 7/10 of the soldiers back then were archers, so they would more or less evolve to the point of 10/10 of them having high precision lazer crossbows with some sort of energy / chain melee weapon for close quarters or something.

Hoplon:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

DugMachine:
It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

I think its the nice thing about guns.

I would take a bullet to the dome over laying in a field slow bleeding out from a massive gash on my shoulder any day.

Tell that to a heavy machine gun round to the wrist the hydrostatic shock from which will drag the blood out of your heart suffocating you to death.

Guns are not nice things in the slightest.

Counterpoint: As opposed to having my ribcage crushed so I slowly die? Or being stabbed so I slowly bleed out?

I think we can just say, that with swords or guns, it's all a painful death

DugMachine:
I think i'd actually interested in joining the military if this was the case. I don't shy away from shooting games but the idea of being there one moment and being gone in the slight pull of a trigger and a bullet ripping through your head seems so... I don't know, pointless. It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

At least with a sword n shield it seems pretty equal on both sides of the fight.

I read somewhere that back in the Napoleonic era, when you had both guns and melee (muskets with bayonets), soldiers would much prefer standing and shooting (and probably getting shot) than charging in with bayonets, getting gutted, and lying there to die while their comrades walked over their mangled body :/

It might have been why bayonet charges were sometimes surprisingly effective...I guess no one wants to get bayoneted!

If only firearms didn't exist, cavalry would still be replaced by vehicles, perhaps making a modern battlefield more like a Demolition Derby which would render most kinds of infantry useless (apart from being roadkill).

Also, without firearms, crossbow technology would have probably advanced to near firearm levels, with machine guns being replaced by huge, rapid firing pneumatic Arbelests and artillery being replaced with more reliable, more powerful and accurate, satellite guided Trebuchets and Catapults.

We'd also still have aerial warfare, but with the planes and helicopters dropping rocks, darts and firing bolts rather than bombs, bullets and missiles.

Naval warfare would be quite interesting, with battleships and submarines turning into huge, heavily armoured ramming vessels with immense crane arms for attacking ships and coastal installations.

However, if lots of modern technology like the internal combustion engine, projectile weapons, flight, chemical and biological warfare, artillery and firearms didn't exist, I think Pikes would perhaps be still be the most effective infantry weapon.

Modern technology would probably make them lighter, longer and stronger, and perhaps give them an electric shock too, so they'd be like very long cattle prods.

Apart from making swords and melee weapons stronger, lighter, sharper and perhaps giving them an electric shock, there's not a lot of advancement to be made.

Ultimately however, I think most advancements in a non-firearms, melee warfare world, would be made to armour, with protection from weapons becoming paramount and key to victory. If you could render all of your opponents attacks harmless, then there's not a lot they could do to stop you (from loitering).

Most battles would become a mass brawl between two armies of unarmed, power armour clad fighters wrestling each other and attempting to break each others limbs and bodies with their bare hands and grappling techniques.

Grappling Martial Arts like (the many forms of Western) Wrestling, Sambo, Judo and Jiu-Jitsu would become the main focus of military training as no actual weapons would be effective once everyone developed the same standard of power armour.

I keep thinking of this

But other than that, I agree with the need for chain swords.

No laser spears?

High frequency blades dudes. Diamond shields with Kevlar coating and ceramic alloy armor. That would be my kit.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

DugMachine:
It disturbs me how quickly someone can die with guns.

I think its the nice thing about guns.

I would take a bullet to the dome over laying in a field slow bleeding out from a massive gash on my shoulder any day.

you do know most people who get shot in war die from sepsis, shock and blood loss... it's not really any faster than being stabbed... tho I will grant you that in general being shot hurts less than being stabbed

Amethyst Wind:
Wars would be a lot bloodier and fought between a lot more people.

We'd have many more deaths on each side.

How do you figure that? The way I see it wars would be a lot LESS bloody and fought between a lot FEWER people.

canadamus_prime:

Amethyst Wind:
Wars would be a lot bloodier and fought between a lot more people.

We'd have many more deaths on each side.

How do you figure that? The way I see it wars would be a lot LESS bloody and fought between a lot FEWER people.

Not really. You couldn't use strategic air assets to cripple your enemies supply lines, bases of operation - anything quickly and "cleanly". You'd have to take each stretch of land bit by bit. It's like comparing modern warfare to the trench warfare of WWI. Weight of numbers would mean a lot too, even if you had the best trained army out there and the best weapons if your enemy arms their entire (able bodied) country you would lose.

...the daily news and war documentaries would be a hell of a lot more entertaining.

OT: I like to think that even if we probably wouldn't have light sabers yet (since we don't have laser guns used in war now) we'd at least have the chainsaw gun from Gears of War.

Or something along those lines. Shame the gunblade variant would ruin it since it has a gun in it. Who knows, maybe if swords and shields were still being used we could also have ninjas with shurikens, sais and kamas running around the battlefield.

Perhaps you could make a game of thinking up which regions would use a certain type of weapon.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked