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

[Heaven's Guardian]

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.

 

[Nouw]

So basically Warhammer 40,000? Sweet.

 

[Zeckt]

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.

 

[Lionsfan]

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

 

[dyre]

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!

 

[Jamash]

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.

 

[DoPo]

I keep thinking of this


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

 

[Risingblade]

No laser spears?

 

[ozium]

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

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

 

[Midnight Llamaman]

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.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

...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.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I see everyone looking like either Master Chief, Raiden (post robotification)/Grey Fox or, everyone riding around in various mobile-suits. I, being the massive coward that I am, would still stay the hell away from wars and, the military but I would sure as hell be tempted to join a Navy that uses Metal Gear Ray or, a military that would turn me into a break-dancing android ninja...which would likely be Japan now that I think about it. They probably wouldn't have laser-swords (yet) but I see something like the Vibro-blade (think star wars) and/or electrical blades. Possibly other elemental blades (fire, water, etc) because hey, why not?

 

[Bertylicious]

Basically the soldiery would be dimwits and conflicts would drag on because it'd be harder to strike decisivly. There'd be different military adventurism towards relying on relying on local agent provateurs (more Bay of Pigs than Afghanistan) and full scale war would be a constant part of life without the threat of nuclear annhilation.

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

The next evolution is warfare is obviously Zoid battles.

Too badass.​

Ahhhh.... Zoids, how I miss you. Such a badass kids show.

OT: Gunswords that shoot various flavours of lightning anyone?

 

[Section Crow]

I prefer melee tactics and strategy, i always have believed that guns and bombs just are too powerful and too easy to use for my liking where as melee combat levels out the experienced from the inexperienced.

Plus it would remove the factor of a country being all powerful just because they have a nuke.

 

[dimensional]

Well if we resorted to swords and shields despite having advanced gun technology I can only say that it would be because somehow the swords and shields are more effective or at least render gunfire ineffective I dont know maybe the shield has a forcefield bubble that deflects high velocity attacks or something and can only be entered at a close range where guns are pretty much useless.

Or maybe they have developed the ninja suit from metal gear solid on mass production so trained soldiers can actually dodge bullets and strike faster than a gun fires (and somehow not have their body get destroyed from this exertion).

Or maybe giant mechs have been developed with some uber powerful short range energy weapon which basically looks like a sword.

If shields had advanced to nullify most firearms we would probably see a lot less deaths but if somehow swords had replaced firearms as the favourite weapon because they are somehow more powerful we would obviously see a lot more deaths. It still wouldnt get me to join the military though I dislike getting shot or stabbed,crushed etc