Well if we're taking Rome as an example, that first one doesn't hold water. They were a very violent people, but they didn't commit genocide. Clemency was a favorite for them. And just because we have more effective killing tools doesn't mean the two situations aren't comparable.AntiChri5 said:I seriously doubt it becausesilver wolf009 said:One of those times where you've just got to set your hands down, shake your head and say, "Yeah, that's pretty slick" sadly.EHKOS said:I know this is pretty terrible, but I have to give the guy props for inventing a new way to lure people in to kill.
OT: You know, I wonder what sort of debate could be found in ancient times on similar subjects. Were there concerns in Rome about an abundance of Gladius swords for the common man? Was there no such problem? It makes me wonder how civilizations have dealt with the topic before.
A) Their culture was much less removed from violence then ours. Comitting genocide was status symbol, not a crime.
and
B) A sword does not have the killing power of a gun. Walk into a crowded area with a sword and start slashing, and people are far more capable of both fleeing and protecting themselves then if you walked in with an assault rifle and started shooting.
At the time, possession of a sword or a pike or armor would be the highest possible and imaginable portable armory one could wield. They would be the most dangerous and lethal they could be, comparable to someone with assault weapons today. Less effective by comparison yes, but in more or less the same position.
EDIT: I think I misread the first part of A, but even now after reflection, I can't tell... Correct me if I did.