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

[Codeman90]

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.

If you honestly think wars before guns were decided by numbers then I think you need to do A LOT more research. I think the most important factor in nearly any major battle is morale. You can give those guys $10 to fight back, but what happens if one of them dies, do they stand and fight? Armies won and lost based on shock and morale. The mortality rates of ancient battles were mostly due to shitty medical care. If you want insane death tolls then WWI was about as worse as it got in terms of weapons doing the majority of the killing.

 

[Rpground]

yes i would,guns suck. my personal arsenal would be 2 swords (duel wield) and a shortbow with arrows. bow for ranged combat and swords for close combat P:

my whole deal would be based around agility.

if it was just swords and bows combat would be alot more skill oriented. and alot of strategy could be involved. at least i believe so.

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.

um...no ONE single person is gonna fight 3 guys with polearms when he only has a sword,reach advantage anyone!? and when fighting it would be in groups and there wouldnt only be melee fights on the lines as well. when fighting with swords and bows there has been quite a few times in history that a side was out numbered anywhere from 3:1 - 5:1 and they won. its because they used tactics and strategy. boiling oils and tar,calvery,fire,ballista,ect. would all factor into a fight (if not most) so sadly no numbers do not make the army,it helps but its not the be all end all as you say. the truth of the matter is the better the general the better the army typically is as a whole.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Sure. Bows and arrows have advantages over guns, anyway. That advantage is not distance, though.

 

[Calbeck]

I'm an SCA hardsuit fighter.

I get together a few times a year with a few thousand other people, and we beat the crap out of each other for fun and the presumptual glory of a fictional kingdom.

So yeah. I would.

 

[Booze Zombie]

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.

I did believe that armour was actually a major factor in the defeat of a great number of troops in ye olde combat? What with the kinetic force of arrows hitting the plate armour they were dead before they fell from their horses.

I imagine a quick war hammer strike would have a similar effect...

 

[Epicspoon]

I would punch. punch EVERYTHING. HARD.

 

[spectrenihlus]

Swords and shields does sound pretty badass. And more 'honorable' than gunning people down under a hail of precise and deadly ammunition.

To quote from Game of Thrones

Lysa Arryn: "You don't fight with honor."
Bron:"No, (points to recently slain opponent) he did."

 

[Dr Jones]

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

I never said guns dont require skill. In fact i believe guns are pretty much the same as swords. Skill is important. I honestly have no idea where you got the idea that i thought guns required no skill whatsoever. My point is that its kinda hard to square off against a sniper with a 50 MG gun strong enough to blow your arm off from 1000 meters away, compared to swords where you basically just face off. Guns are just as much an art as swords (read up on Gun Kata).

um...no ONE single person is gonna fight 3 guys with polearms when he only has a sword,reach advantage anyone!? and when fighting it would be in groups and there wouldnt only be melee fights on the lines as well. when fighting with swords and bows there has been quite a few times in history that a side was out numbered anywhere from 3:1 - 5:1 and they won. its because they used tactics and strategy. boiling oils and tar,calvery,fire,ballista,ect. would all factor into a fight (if not most) so sadly no numbers do not make the army,it helps but its not the be all end all as you say. the truth of the matter is the better the general the better the army typically is as a whole.

Exactly! Now.. Im off to read Sun Tzu!

 

[GoldenFish]

Are you perhaps referring to the 300 Scenario? Yeah, that didn't bloody happen. Sure, three hundred spartans showed up to fight off something around ten thousand or more Persians... But they also had several THOUSAND prisoners they forced to fight with them.

Run a few Total War scenarios. You will never see a situation where five can defeat a hundred. You'll never see a situation where a hundred can defeat a thousand, or even five hundred (unless you have a castle and siege weaponry).

Ontop of that, you are talking about leveling the playing field. Almost everyone on the planet will have access to the same technology. Nearly everyone will be just as well armed as you unless they are a poorer nation.

There were many different kinds of weaponry and armour that would help considerably and unfortunately not everywhere in the world has access to resources to make the same quality. You were talking about using skilled fighters against unskilled, I did the same the only difference was the lack of modern weapons. So yes I agree I am talking about levelling the playing field. Same situation. (at least that's how I see it).

 

[BulletMoaf]

i fight people who actually and physically come to threaten my home, which since i live in sweden, means i dont fight. not much point for joining an army either then . and weaponry wont change that.

 

[Lost Cause]

No, because I'd just fail the pre-service medical like I would in real life.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Dear god no, any old prick (i.e. me) can fire a gun, hand to hand fighting means you have to be fit and well trained.

I did believe that armour was actually a major factor in the defeat of a great number of troops in ye olde combat? What with the kinetic force of arrows hitting the plate armour they were dead before they fell from their horses.

I imagine a quick war hammer strike would have a similar effect...

What? Never heard that one before, late plate armour was pretty much arrow proof and well padded, had to be fired from very close range (20m or less) to have a chance of penetrating, other than pure luck of hitting a joint they were a harrasing weapon at best against that sort of thing. Even early stuff was well padded...maybe if it hit them in the side of the head and broke their neck or something.

Warhammer, yeah you have some meaty dude on the end of it, little old arrow notsomuch.

 

[StormShaun]

No, make me carry a sword and I would be okay, charge into battle and kill all of the enemy.

 

[willsham45]

I would not take a bullet for my country nore an arrow.
although i would welcome dueling for quelling arguments...that would be so cool. forget words duel.

 

[The Rockerfly]

No thanks, you guys have the weapons and I don't want to work with the guys with weapons

 

[Jedoro]

No way. I'd rather have a high powered sniper rifle 1000 yards away from danger than a wimpy bow and arrow.

Fixed

OT: No. The point of war should be to win, not to fight fair. If I can fire a metal ball at you from out of slashing range, you bet your ass I'll do it if it means I get to walk away and you don't.

 

[rutger5000]

No but I would join the army if there weren't any officers. There are many causes I would be willing to kill and be killed for, but only if I can kill those I see fit and while showing proper respect to my enemies. I don't think officers would let me allow to do that. If I was forced but could have some choice I would join an army that didn't use weapons the user of which is practically safe (Like snipers, altillery or (depending on the enemies equipment) tanks and aircraft.) So yeah I would be more willing to join, but I still wouldn't be eager for it.

 

[Panorama]

No my Cowardice stretches for any kind of weapon, or just fighting full stop.

 

[mad825]

The only thing that stops me from joining the army is the fitness required and possibly my physical/mental heath otherwise it would nice to flex those archery skills.

 

[rutger5000]

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.

I do not agree with what you are saying. I'm pretty sure they had the same situations when there were only swords and such. I'm actually thinking a group of well trained well equipped soldiers with sword type weaponry could hold off an untrained or lightly trained much larger group of soldiers much better than with modern technology.

Are you perhaps referring to the 300 Scenario? Yeah, that didn't bloody happen. Sure, three hundred spartans showed up to fight off something around ten thousand or more Persians... But they also had several THOUSAND prisoners they forced to fight with them.

Run a few Total War scenarios. You will never see a situation where five can defeat a hundred. You'll never see a situation where a hundred can defeat a thousand, or even five hundred (unless you have a castle and siege weaponry).

Ontop of that, you are talking about leveling the playing field. Almost everyone on the planet will have access to the same technology. Nearly everyone will be just as well armed as you unless they are a poorer nation.

I'm in no way a military expert, but it's easy to see that what you say depends on the environment. Say you're fighting in the plains with no cover what so ever. In such a senario 5 well trained well equiped modern day soldiers would have no chance of taking down even two dozens of lesser trained and equiped soldiers, while it wouldn't be impossible for medival (or roman) style equiped soldiers to do so. If you don't agree with that imagine a situation like the fighting seen of oldboy (youtube it) the guy wouldn't have stood a chance if guns were involved. If there is plenty of chest high cover, then those who know how to use it have the advantage.
Also while I can't be certain about it, I think the roman empire often degeated whole armies using forces much much smaller then said army to do so.