Do you think it wouldve been better if gunpowder had never been discovered?

Question

I do because it would give our souldiers a fighting chance, a REAL fighting chance. I mean, honestly, if you get shot, its pretty certain youre gonna die (no offense), but if ppl still used things like swords and spears, you would have a better chance of living. Youre brain, cant even REGISTER, that youve been shot if u get shot by a sniper rifle, all it knows, is ur dead. So, give me YOUR opinion, please.

Answer 1

You would have a LOT more maimed and injured people. It would require more hand-to-hand combat.

Plus, you take the power of OUR sniper corps away.

Answer 2

WHERE did you get the idea that if you fought with swords and spears, you would have a better chance of survival? Have you never heard of bows? Catapults? Trebuchets? Ballistae? Have you ever seen the weapons used back then? How about a Scottish Claymore (not the anti-personnel mine - the sword) with a blade 36-48in in length, so heavy, it could only be wielded double-handed - if somebody used that on you, trust me, you'd be dead - or dying.

Of the missile launchers - catapults and trebuchets were massive machines, some capable of hurling rocks as heavy as 5 tons, hundreds of yards. Think you might survive that? How about bows - the English longbow, capable of hurling an armour-piercing arrow up to 360 yards - there are French accounts from the hundred years war (England v France) of the sky turning dark with arrows - survivors? Not many. Or ballistae - the most powerful ballista could hurl a javelin or spear up to half a mile. Or right through 10 men - with enough energy left to seriously wound someone standing 100 yards away.

The fact is, when pre-gunpowder battles were fought, they were enormous affairs, involving swordsmen, spearmen, archers, cavalry, sappers, catapults and ballistae (trebuchets were too unwieldy for pitched battles and were used in sieges). They often lasted days, with neither side being able to retrieve their wounded. Consequently, many who were not killed outright, died in agony - over several hours. Fire was used extensively - there's nothing more likely to get the enemy running than fire - hurled as fiery balls of pitch and naptha by catapults, or fiery arrows launched by rank upon rank of archers.

Eventually, even armour was no real protection, thanks to us (the British) inventing the armour-piercing Bodkin Arrow. After that particular little innovation, the only troops that could stand against archers firing them, were heavily-armoured cavalry and only because they could move quickly.

During these times, if in a war, you were more likely to die than not. As I already said, if you were injured (the lucky ones died instantly, or nearly so), the chances were you would die - from your injuries, or days later from infection - did you think these battles were clean? A common trick, among soldiers back then, was to p*** on the ground and then push their weapon (swords, arrows and spears) into it. Imagine being on the wrong end of that - one little nick and you're guaranteed a slow death, as gonorrhea and syphilis were rife.

Not pretty is it? Just think where we'd be, if gunpowder had never been invented... the advances of the last thousand years might never have taken place. Our medical knowledge might be no more advanced now, than it was then - when you could just as easily die from having an infected hangnail as you could from being disembowelled.

Just think - Neil Armstrong might never have walked on the moon (and all that speculation about whether he did or not might never have been speculated)(yes, I'm using bad English in a humerous way - the subject is depressing).

Fact is, the invention of gunpwder led to a lot of other advances, which led to more advances and so on.

Personally, I would rather be shot and die instantly, as opposed to being scratched, cut or whatever with a filthy weapon and lingering in agony for days.

What do YOU think now?

PS Please - nobody point out that "humorous" is spelled incorrectly - it was deliberate.

Answer 3

right this moment's squaddies do no longer combat with gunpowder. Black powder hasn't been used in protection rigidity firearms for a century or greater. so as that they could be struggling with with extreme powered attack rifles. If no explosives have been ever chanced on, the worldwide does no longer be everywhere close to progressed as that's right this moment. as nicely black powder, there are different varieties of explosives from some time past, like gun cotton and nitroglycerin. So powder did no longer inevitably could desire to be invented.

Answer 4

My AP Bio teacher told my class that a person has a greater chance of dieing from a stab wound, then a gun shot wound. And think of it this way...If you are unarmed, would you rather have someone with a sword right in your face, or someone trying to shoot at you from a distance? Besides, I'de rather be shot and just be dead then see this sword coming towards me and have time to think, "Wow, I'm going to die."

Answer 5

You need to study a little history. The wars of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other early societies were brutal, large scale affairs that killed huge numbers of people, a much higher percentage of the population than by today's standards.

Answer 6

Who's soldiers are you talking about? Typical hand-to-hand had pretty even casualty rates on both sides. The bigger army won by attrition. Look at the lopsided victories the U.S. has won both times we invaded Iraq. We've just recently hit 3,000 dead. We killed more than that on the first day! That's pure firepower, baby.

Answer 7

NO. Gunpowder gives many people around the world the ability to feed their families. Guns are not good or bad, they are inanimate objects. The people who use them to do bad things are bad people.

Answer 8

Clubs, bow and arrows ,rocks, There is always something to use against each other

Answer 9

No.


Have a nice day!