| Was it better when we fought with swords and spears then guns? |
| Yes |
|
55% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
44% |
[ 4 ] |
| Dunno, Not intrested |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| Tony-Santara |
 Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:10 am Post subject: Was it better when we had wars with swords? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 12
Location: Desk, Study, House, Street, Town, Country, World, Universe.
|
I was thinking.  Was it better when we fought with swords and spears and battle were over in a day or a week and only the soldiers died not citizens or now when wars take years and millions die soldiers or citizens. Your opinion please. 
_________________
I am 13 years old and i am on here because my mum is always on here and i want to see what the fuss is about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
You have not yet lived through a war, and I really hope you never do, but those of us who have see no difference between the sword and the bullet.
THe development of weapons technology increased the numbers of people killed, mained etc in wars and these numbers peaked in the 20th century, nuclear weapons became a deterrent against wars (so they say) and perhaps in future wars will be more 'surgical' ie aimed at taking out the head only.
Nw to your question, "What is better"
Was what better?
The number of casualties?
Your chance of surviving a war?
Living standards before and after?
The 'best' way of killing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Tony-Santara |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: Answer |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 12
Location: Desk, Study, House, Street, Town, Country, World, Universe.
|
I have lved though a war and are still living though t right now. The Iraq war and i really ment war as a whole when i meant twhat was better? I mean would you rather beon the battle field today or 500-600 years ago?
_________________
I am 13 years old and i am on here because my mum is always on here and i want to see what the fuss is about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Ok I think it was better with a sword, only becuase your attacker had to come close enough so that you could fight him. With a gun, you never know who is about to kill you as they could be a mile away, same with missiles, rockets etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Minxy |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
On Probation
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 283
|
I agree
Killing someone close up is far better because it's personal because you know there's another real person under the sword.
In that way there is a conscious involved.
Nowadays the enemy is a faceless bundle somewhere on a map and war has become statistics.
To exclude the conscious from the act of killing is barbaric and should have no honour in it whatsoever.
There is then no chance of empathy or understanding and no possibility of a peaceful resolve.
Do you mean warfare using chemicals and low frequencies MB? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Minxy |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
On Probation
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 283
|
And Tony Santara
Get on with you're homework!
You are now banned from the computer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Minxy wrote: |
Do you mean warfare using chemicals and low frequencies MB? |
Only against bugs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: Re: Was it better when we had wars with swords? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 1365
|
| Tony-Santara wrote: |
| I was thinking. Was it better when we fought with swords and spears and battle were over in a day or a week and only the soldiers died not citizens or now when wars take years and millions die soldiers or citizens. Your opinion please. |
It is inevitable the weapons of war and the strategies would evolve.
The idea is to inflict the most amount of damage while minimizing your own fatalities. If your opponent is more skilled with swords, you'll want to find a way to fight him without having to submit to swordplay, as this would mean defeat for your army. So, you develop ways to kill your opponent without having to submit to their superior fighting methods. Firing arrows from a distance would achieve that goal, for example, as is firing missiles from miles away.
_________________
I may have no understanding of the current theory of evolution. But that's because science keeps changing it. A few weeks ago I read in the newspaper that it had once again been adjusted & just the other day I discovered a new book called "The New Theory of Evolution" ~~Steven Titchenell : W.V.B.I.G. President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3176
Location: Somewhere, nowhere.
|
No its not better, I don't even think 'better' is the appropriate word. A sword can cut your limbs of and leave you in agony A LOT of agony, and then again a bullet can slowly and VERY painfully kill you. And then theres explosives and they are just even worse. Its a bad thing all told.
_________________
"Laugh at life or it will laugh at you". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2088
Location: South Africa
|
Personally, I would like to see the rules of battle to come back, with some additions. Each side takes 100 men or so and fight on a field with whatever they choose. Then the battle would take a day at most and at most 199 people would be killed. But this is unfortunately as wild an idea as Bush and Bin Laden playing a game of chess (Bush would loose).
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Minxy |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On Probation
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 283
|
| Anyone country that uses such things as chemical warfare like they did in Vietnam or scatter bombs like they did in Iraq are cowards and the lowest form of humans and have no right to call themselves civilized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| That's mostly the UK and the US (both use cluster bombs) I worked at one point for a defence company, but resigned when they wanted me to work on offensive weapons! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Minxy |
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On Probation
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 283
|
| Megabrain wrote: |
| That's mostly the UK and the US (both use cluster bombs) I worked at one point for a defence company, but resigned when they wanted me to work on offensive weapons! |
I'm ashamed to be British or be part of a country that associates with America, and before the Americans jump down my throat. I have nothing against the American people or the British.
I think it's high time people/us started taking some of the power to make the decisions back.
And the laughable thing is that the excuse they use is one of spreading democracy when this 'concept' or catchphrase isn't even put into practice in America or Britain.
If it was Britain would never have sent troops to Iraq and Bush wouldn't be in Presidency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| dejawolf |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Posts: 674
Location: Norway
|
well, with sword and shield, fighting insurgencies in urban areas is a lot cleaner, fewer civilian casualties and all that.
but the battlefield isn't much different at all.
you shoot at people until they die or surrender.
not much different from hacking people up until they die or flee.
back in the days, victorious armies had a habit of pillaging all valuables from
the peasants, raping the women, and burning down the villages.
_________________
only a fool puts art above science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Tony-Santara |
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 12
Location: Desk, Study, House, Street, Town, Country, World, Universe.
|
| dejawolf wrote: |
back in the days, victorious armies had a habit of pillaging all valuables from
the peasants, raping the women, and burning down the villages. |
Yes but they also had a habit of living in the town/city they had pillaged and that means they would be friendsly with the locals and if the town is thiers why would they pillage their own town? It just sounds unusual. Just my opinon
_________________
I am 13 years old and i am on here because my mum is always on here and i want to see what the fuss is about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
