If wars were still fought with blade and shield...
- Thread starter Jaeke
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I imagine these things would look very similar, but with some lights and colors. As to the question of would I be more involved in the military, I don't know. I would be more willing to go to war, because I believe that melee combat is mostly dependent on skill whereas modern combat is mostly dependent on luck, and I need to give the dice no more chances to kill me. However, I still don't approve of the wars my country is fighting, so I'm not sure I would go to war anyway.
Dying of blood loss is not the same as suffocating, and hydrostatic shock is still debated. It supposedly causes pressure waves to travel through the body causing damage, not pulling it all out.Hoplon said:
Having said that, yeah, bullet wounds aren't supposed to be fun.
As it is, I don't see how a lack of gunpowder would change our ranged combat overmuch. I imagine we would have perfected some manner of spring-fired, or even pneumatic, projectile weapon.
Humans naturally gravitate towards things that are easier. In the great game of killing, we went from sharp sticks, to sharp stones, to sticks with sharp stones on, to sticks with sharp stones on shot from sticks with strings on, to metal sticks with sharp edges, etc. etc. etc. People would have found a way to make a more efficient killing implement than a sword or crossbow by now (probably some nasty clockwork contraption).
Don't get me wrong, I don't like (sometimes outright hate) guns, but the pragmatist in me sees the inherent advantage.
If we didn't have a way to throw rocks with chemical power, we'd find a way to do it with mechanical power. We would have to, or someone else would, and then they have the advantage. Look how long it took people to go from a gun that shoots one bullet every other minute to firing hundreds in the same span of time?
I imagine something that fires bullets (or small darts) via pneumatic pressure powered by handcrank. A fully automatic airgun of sorts.
Humans naturally gravitate towards things that are easier. In the great game of killing, we went from sharp sticks, to sharp stones, to sticks with sharp stones on, to sticks with sharp stones on shot from sticks with strings on, to metal sticks with sharp edges, etc. etc. etc. People would have found a way to make a more efficient killing implement than a sword or crossbow by now (probably some nasty clockwork contraption).
Don't get me wrong, I don't like (sometimes outright hate) guns, but the pragmatist in me sees the inherent advantage.
If we didn't have a way to throw rocks with chemical power, we'd find a way to do it with mechanical power. We would have to, or someone else would, and then they have the advantage. Look how long it took people to go from a gun that shoots one bullet every other minute to firing hundreds in the same span of time?
I imagine something that fires bullets (or small darts) via pneumatic pressure powered by handcrank. A fully automatic airgun of sorts.
Nah, you can make one yourself. All you need is some thick-gague wire, cutters, pliers, and lots of time. If you wanted to make a really good one you get yourself a vice and a spot-welding kit. Fear no knives.henritje said:
Yes, but that also means no nuclear weapons so fewer civilian casualties.Midnight Llamaman said:
When people have to fight and kill, they generally prefer to do it out of arms length of their adversary. Close, hand-to-hand combat was (and still) saved as a last resort even before gunpowder weapons became dominate on the battlefield.
So if all the world's armies were armed with medieval weapons, I think a modern version of the crossbow would be the weapon of choice. As for artillery, like mangonels (I think I spelled that right) and scorpions (ballistas for the historically uninitiated), would be spring, air, or hydraulically powered. Like what you see at pumpkin-chuckin' competitions.
So if all the world's armies were armed with medieval weapons, I think a modern version of the crossbow would be the weapon of choice. As for artillery, like mangonels (I think I spelled that right) and scorpions (ballistas for the historically uninitiated), would be spring, air, or hydraulically powered. Like what you see at pumpkin-chuckin' competitions.
I have never been shot, but I have been stabbed and I can say it wasn't all that bad. (don't get me wrong it sucked after the adrenaline wore off, but during that time I was okay enough to get to a pay phone and call an ambulance.) Just like with real estate the key is Location Location Location. I'll take a stab would on my side again over a gsw to the thigh any day. but I'd take a gsw to the arm over a gut wound from a sword any day.Liquidacid23 said:
Still would be. Why send melee units into a cramped building when I could just trebuchet several dozen gallons of napalm at it instead. At least with guns, if you HAVE to enter a building, you can hose it down with lead first to soften up the defenders. Artillery would still reign supreme, then mounted crossbow units.Rakun Man said:
God bless america right?Liquidacid23 said:
My old buss driver was a commando for 7 years he is a nice guy but when he told me he actually was one i jokingly asked how many throats he slit and said
"i dont want to talk about it in an emotionless voice"
I'm not sure if that's even possible, the people who developed like that would have to be pretty idiotic to never consider more advanced forms of weaponry, that of which is ranged I mean.
Preserving lives during warfare was a major priority for countries so that they could outlast their enemies, developing ways to kill without endangering their troops was highly sought after.
I guess if instead of focusing on technologies such as the bow and arrow, they instead focused on protecting their troops with highly developed armor and shielding technology, then I guess that'd steer nations down the technological path of keeping things within melee range.
still seems highly unlikely, since the days of conflict with sword and shield were the bloodiest in history. getting bombarded by ranged attacks, not being able to kill your enemy from where you are, causes far more moral shock than if you were going headlong into face to face battle. I guess that'd mean the people who developed like that would have much less value in human life, and held more value in personal worth and their duty .
Preserving lives during warfare was a major priority for countries so that they could outlast their enemies, developing ways to kill without endangering their troops was highly sought after.
I guess if instead of focusing on technologies such as the bow and arrow, they instead focused on protecting their troops with highly developed armor and shielding technology, then I guess that'd steer nations down the technological path of keeping things within melee range.
still seems highly unlikely, since the days of conflict with sword and shield were the bloodiest in history. getting bombarded by ranged attacks, not being able to kill your enemy from where you are, causes far more moral shock than if you were going headlong into face to face battle. I guess that'd mean the people who developed like that would have much less value in human life, and held more value in personal worth and their duty .
I can see that. When I was stabbed it felt like I was scraped, if it wasn't for the hilt sticking out I wouldn't have though he penetrated my skin. Either way you go it can be unpleasant I guess would be the overriding arch here.Liquidacid23 said:
I would Like a plasma Glaive, blades on each end, and I would become a whirling mass of metal, energy and death.
and people saying Melee levels the playing field. shut up, you don't know what you're talking about.
and people saying Melee levels the playing field. shut up, you don't know what you're talking about.
