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

[I_Sinanju _I]

Must be the Japanese in me but the idea of fighting with my body and a sword seems interesting.

 

[kickassfrog]

If I won't join the army when my country's army has powerful air support, armoured vehicles and body armour, why would I join if they were fighting on even terms?

No, in other words.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

No thanks however I wouldn't be able to join one anyway. At least not in a capacity that required me to kill someone. I could still do some kind of support position though.

 

[Robert Ewing]

A weaponless army is a useless army. I'm pretty sure that's got to be a famous quote somewhere.

Sure you can give them melee weapons, that may of been useful in the 16th century, but not now. The army would get slaughtered in any situation. The country would not trust the army to protect them, because they couldn't, the army would not have any authority at all. And unless the government has some sort of constitution, then the government will not bother to support an army that does nothing. So it will loose governmental support, and will become just another organisation. Just as influential as Oxfam. Well, I guess it will become a pretty bad PMC.

So no, a weaponless army is pointless. Just disband it, it will save money.

 

[Sojoez]

Sorry, I clicked no before reading. But by 'guns' I thought weapons in general. In this age? Still no. In ancient Sparta? Yeah why not? (Not that I would of had a choice)

 

[Hexenwolf]

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.

Look up Crecy. A perfect example of a tiny army beating a bigger, better equipped and trained one on their own soil simply through superior tactics and an innovative weapon such as the longbow. Also if you look back further at many of the great battles in the Roman era, small armies of well discplined Roman soldiers managed to beat vast hordes of barbarians.

Hmm...

That said, tactics have always been a pretty major influence in the outcome of all confrontations (including today). Not the only one though.

 

[rutger5000]

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.

Yes but I could also give one modernday heavy machine gun (minigun?) to 1 random person, dig a trench for him and set the gun up then tell him to push that small stick towards him/her self and aim at anyone who gets in their side. Then you can go dress up in full modern day armor get all your buddies and equipment together and try to kill him/her. I don't care if you've been trained your entire live or how many fellow trained soldiers you bring. Its NOT going to happen.
It would still be all about tactics whatever kind of weapon you're using.
By the way a spear isn't such an easy weapon you can use it effectivly without any training what so ever. In the situation you described on with a decent shield and good armor most certainly does have a chance, granted not that much of a chance but a chance never the less.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

How would we decide wars with Quake?

 

[ChocoFace]

that would just make me more inclined to not join the army at all.

With bullets you'll at least get a clean death.

 

[DrVengeance]

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.

First off, it was more like 1300, 1000 Greeks and 300 Spartans.
Secondly, Total War isn't as... flexible or as 'random' as really war.
Finally, Henry V, known for his use of archers; he beat the French even why vastly out numbered.

But I would join the military and I'd join it now as a member of the 'Life Guard'; 'A patriot should always be ready, to defend his nation. Against his government.'

Also, did no one read the part where he basically said 'No one has modern weapons'?

 

[Guffe]

I am in the army and there are guns, so why would I not join/be there if the weaponry would be less advanced? Of course I personally think it would be a lot harder to have to kill someone by looking into their eyes when killing instead of sitting in a bush never facing the guy I killed.

 

[smithy_2045]

I don't have the physical capacity to survive hand-to-hand combat.

 

[spielberg11]

If there were no guns AND if there were freakin' lightsabers?

Sign me up!

 

[SaberXIII]

No, but I'd be far more inclined to fight if the combat was based mostly om fighting skill rather than luck, like it is with guns.

 

[AlphaEcho]

The army is just a stupid thing to join anyways. Why fight for the ideals of your leaders (who most likely are assholes) when you should be fighting for the ideals of yourself.

To stop every ass hole from marching into your country and raping your loved ones?

 

[Spambot 3000]

I wouldn't join the army in any scenario.

 

[Dr Jones]

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.

Wanna talk Total War? I've taken several armies down with almost no units left. It isn't too tough once you got it. Hide in the bushes, wait for em to turn their back and storm them. Also, wanna talk Total War again? It disproves your own belief that number>skill no matter what. A trained Samurai unit will easily dispatch any kind of ashigaru's (maybe up to 3 units). But of course that depends on wether or not they are ambushed (the samurais)

 

[alrekr]

The army is just a stupid thing to join anyways. Why fight for the ideals of your leaders (who most likely are assholes) when you should be fighting for the ideals of yourself.

If every man only fought for what he believed in then there would be no wars.

OT: no way; firstly due to how more likely I am to die(swords and maces etc... are usually more painful than a gunshot and these close range battles had a very high fatality rate). Also the lack of explosives means no Noble Peace prize and a far less advance society due to lack of decent minning methods.

 

[Nikolaz72]

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.

Yes but I could also give one modernday heavy machine gun (minigun?) to 1 random person, dig a trench for him and set the gun up then tell him to push that small stick towards him/her self and aim at anyone who gets in their side. Then you can go dress up in full modern day armor get all your buddies and equipment together and try to kill him/her. I don't care if you've been trained your entire live or how many fellow trained soldiers you bring. Its NOT going to happen.
It would still be all about tactics whatever kind of weapon you're using.
By the way a spear isn't such an easy weapon you can use it effectivly without any training what so ever. In the situation you described on with a decent shield and good armor most certainly does have a chance, granted not that much of a chance but a chance never the less.

Modern Armor you say?

Modern-ized-armor?

Bring in the tanks boys. Puny machineguns wont stand a chance.

 

[WolfThomas]

Look up Crecy. A perfect example of a tiny army beating a bigger, better equipped and trained one on their own soil simply through superior tactics and an innovative weapon such as the longbow. Also if you look back further at many of the great battles in the Roman era, small armies of well discplined Roman soldiers managed to beat vast hordes of barbarians.

Hmm...

That said, tactics have always been a pretty major influence in the outcome of all confrontations (including today). Not the only one though.

That's not a typo, the only thing the English had going for them was the longbow. Which wasn't an expensive weapon compared to a crossbow, it was mainly the tactics, versatility and weekend training that made it so special.

The French had three times as many knights, their footsoldiers had better armour and weapons and several times the numbers of the British force and they had seven thousand of the finest crossbow men from Italy as mercenaries, normally those guys could shoot further and had a pavisse or shield that protected them from returned fire. On paper the crossbow men were better soldiers.

But the French were in a hurry, the pavisse shields got lost in the baggage and the crossbowmen were ordered to advance without them, because of the wet conditions the bolts didn't fly as far. The Englishmen kept their bowstrings in their pouches and under their helmets, so they were dry. They butchered the Italians who tried to retreat off the field. Then in the most stupid move of the day the French Knights charged the Italians, which aside from breaking their momentum is pretty darn evil and crap for the morale of common soldiers. They then charged the British, but while their armour was decent enough to protect from most arrows, their horses were un-armoured and died in droves. This combined with pits dug around stopped their cavalry, stakes in the ground would come later around Agincourt. The men at arms on foot also got butchered as the British filled the air with arrows. Basically the French just kept charging them and dieing, minimal tactics. Eventually at dark the British soliders butchered the wound French soldiers and knights on the field with misericords or "mercy-givers" long pointed knives designed to drive in between gaps in the armour.

Something like a third of the male nobility died that day with countless thousands of common soldiers. British estimates are in the hundeds of footsoldiers with maybe one or two dead knights. Though a cheeky scholar would point out the English had five crude cannon and perhaps this invalditates this battle considering the OP's condition, but they really didn't play a huge role.

Sorry for the wall of text, Crecy has always intrigued me.