is there a way for the world to use swords and shields again rather that cowardly guns?

Question

i think that the world now is a coward compared to our ancestors
even fighting face to face in a battlefield with a gun can be considered brave
where is the honour of the fighting soldiers
killing unarmed soldiers and taking advantage of helpless civilians

soldiers now are too afraid of their comanders and are willing to kill someone who isnt going to kill him just when the commander give an order

this is just STUPID

Answer 1

In a letter to President Harry S. Truman, Albert Einstein famously wrote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones

I add and maybe swords

Answer 2

Your thinking is convoluted. First off, whether the armament is firearms or sticks and stones, soldiers follow the orders of their commanders.

In America, the Colt repeating revolver civilized the wild west. The people who used it referred to it as the equalizer. Do you know why? The answer is because it no longer mattered who was the biggest, baddest or strongest person. No one could arbitrarily impose his will on another weaker person because finally, no matter how strong the aggressor, the victim held the equal power of life and death. It forced people to behave themselves.

If the world returned to swords and axes it would be the survival of the fittest again. The beginning of a new dark age.
Smaller countries would be at a serious disadvantage. You need to put more thought into this.


.

Answer 3

Um,

Does that mean that the Brittish were cowards at Agincourt for using the longbow when they were outnumbered 20:1 ?

During ancient wars it was assumed that armies would rape all the women, kill all the men, and loot the towns they took. Rare was the ruler who prevented his troops from such actions.

Today, soldiers go out of their way to fly into AA fire so as to more accuratly target, and therefore reduce collateral damage. We could fly all of our planes outside any AA range and hit our taget with great accuracy. But to make the accuracy greater, we fly our troops into danger.

The other probelm with swords is that they are expensive and take more training and skill to use. They also are limited by strenght, therefore making weaker people less likely to fend off an assault. God did not make all men equal, but Colonel Colt did. With guns as a great equalizer, nobles advangate of training was curtailed.

You might harken for the ancient days, and there is romanticism in anachronism. But the truth is weapons today and warfare today is more dangerous and honorable, with smaller targeted collateral damage, than ancient wars.

Answer 4

You are calling for more warriors instead of soldiers. Individual bravery is to be commended, and it did take gravitas to fight with sword and shield. History proved that soldiers acting as a unit trump brave, but individual warriors 9 out of 10 times. Read Max Boot's new book and he explains this in more depth that I can here. Civilians are a target, whether we like it or not. It can demoralize soldiers who can't protect their families.

Answer 5

Are you a moron? War isn't a video game, kid. War is about taking advantages.

WW2 would of lasted longer if the Allies didn't have superior weaponary and superior aircraft.

I doubt, you've even served in the Military, I suggest you do and hopefully you'll get sent to Iraq and change your mind about swords.

War isn't a game like I said if you're tired you can't say "Hey time-out!"

It's kill or be killed.

And also, even in ancient times, they didn't just used swords, they used bows. They used many things such as sling shots and catapults etc.

Answer 6

I asked a question about that last year. The honorable time of back then is rather overrated. Although more so now, with the use of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical), there was still use of bows and catapults for long range damage. And long before napalm, there was use of greek fire, a similar substance.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ailm58jQ0lxJE0UwkwvWP4Hty6IX?qid=20061026125016AAM6wqb

Answer 7

Weapons were developed to be better than your enemies. Warfare was a more brutal to civilians in past wars. The idea was to dehumanize the civilian population so they would make change in their govt structure to end the war against them.
These days minimal civilian deaths are attributed to "rules of engagement" and weapons that are more accurate in finding their target. In the past it was a crap shoot when bombing facilities and tons of explosives were dropped in the hopes of one hitting there target. Now with gps targeting it only takes one or two bombs to destroy a specific target with minimum civilian casualties.

Answer 8

Wait for World War IV.

Answer 9

Firearms are the superior weapon, they're not going anywhere. Why don't you try coming at a machine gun nest or artillery emplacement with only a Gladius and scutum.

Swords and sabers are for ceremonial use only now.

Answer 10

They do not do war for for the sake of bravery. They do not do it for the sake of glory of honor. They only do it because there is no other option. If we go to war there is no reason not to give it our all. We use guns because it is practical and not because it feeds or ego.