Why don't we go back to using swords & catapults instead of guns and missiles?

Question

[ Forgave me for this little rant. Some of what I say may be wrong ] I know we cannot but there is something magnificent to look and see soldiers lined up with gleaming shields and swords marching and racing into battle. Compare that to today's battles. Battles back then were win through strategies and strength. Nowadays anybody with a nuclear missle or bomb is a national threat. It seems and is crazy. Entire countries destroyed by one bomb the size of a small car. There is barely any face to face combat. One good shot and you are dead. It is better for the leader to battle on the front line with his army than at a desk planning a attack without every being there. There is no longer clashing of swords but of shooting of ammo and the ping of missed shots.

I am not one to judge. I am just asking for your words.

Answer 1

I must say, I would kill or die to bring back that world. Swords play and archery were very skill-oriented and gave soldiers more of a "Warrior" class, as opposed to the simple trigger-pulling people of today. The thing is, in war each country races to become a more efficient fighter than the other, and weaponry plays a key role in this. Once guns came around, everyone raced to have them, and continued building on them to gain more and more power. Around WWI this situation was pretty out of control, if you ask me, and by WWII the whole way of war had changed entirly. War would most certainly be better if we did go back to the old ways, but people just don't want to lose the edge of advanced weaponry. If anyone went back, other nations would have huge advantages, making the move pointless. The only way to ensure that kind of a change would be to make every one think like you and I, and a task like that is on a scale far to broad to execute.

Answer 2

There should be, but it would be almost completely innaffective. The fact of the matter is this, that if banned, guns and other such types of explosives would still exist, but police and other law enforcement officers would not have any of these weapons, and there would still be a large number of black market weapons out there anyways, so criminals would still have them. In theory, the best thing would be that guns were never invented at all, but it's too late to change that. It would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Literally. Also there is the fact that not every country would comply to these rules. What if North Korea decided that they were going to attack America, and they had guns and we had none. That would not end so well. A very complicated question though.

Answer 3

You are trying to glorify fighting. War is not glorious... in any sense. The only thing that matters is winning... destroying the enemy and surviving. The weapon that gives you the greatest advantage in distance and strength is the one you use.

You talk of using catapults... but catapults in their day were also a new technology that put the infantry at disadvantage. Whoever had the most powerful and accurate catapult would win. In the future, there will be ever better weapons and more technology, and the things done today might seem more "brave".

Today´s battles still require strategy and strength. And there is plenty of face to face combat. Maybe not sword to sword type, but ask any of the guys in the front lines of Iraq and they´ll tell you it´s still a fight. I also seriously doubt that wars back in the day were like they paint them in the movies... Leaders in the front lines? I doubt it... Officers are always last to die. If they died first, their army would be done.

Answer 4

Warfare with edged weapons was a horrible thing. Men pushed against each other with shields on fields that became slick with blood. Slashing with swords produced horrible wounds that did not kill at once. A man either bleed to death underfoot or if given an abdominal wound died screaming over a period of days. The smell of blood and rotting meat filled the wake of the fighting and men killed until they were too tired to raise their sword arms.
Combat from the pass to Baghdad is an ugly thing. War is horrible. The most antiwar people you will ever find are those who have seen men die in battle. There is nothing magnificent about war. Not when you are close enough to smell the fear.

Answer 5

You are missing the whole aspect of military science. If the world had total amnesia and the science of gunpowder was lost, it would be just a few generations and mankind would have some new terror weapon. We still have these face to face, steel on skin type combat actions in the world - Rwanda and the Tutsi on Hutu episode comes to mind. Catapults were a major terror weapon in their own time, they flung dead bodies and other forms of biological warfare agents over fortified was as well as napalm. Personally I preferred being shot at than stabbed.

Answer 6

You think battles were more noble with swords? Not hardly.

The Romans could march through most armies inflicting tens of thousands of casualties, while suffering very little of their own. Better trained and better equipped militaries will always come out on top.

Answer 7

you think today's combat doesn't require strategy? look at Iraq and see where "no strategy?" got us!

and who is gonna go for sending their militaries back to the Bronze Age? you'll never convince one to, because they know that nobody else will and they'll be at a major disadvantage. and actually, except for a few nuclear wannabes appearing on the world stage now, nukes were always thought of first and foremost as DETERRENTS, not weapons that would actually be used, though they were built and programmed with that in tha back of everybodies' heads

and who, besides you, thinks combat back then was glorious? far from it, actually! don't watch "Troy" or "Gladiator" for your history lessons!

Answer 8

I agree with you on the magnificence side of things. I think there is just more plain profit in selling machinery and technology rather than just pieces of metal.

I think there was more bravery too, when men had to fight face to face, rather than directing operations from bunkers many miles from the actual battle field.

But, still I wish wars were fought with chewing gum spitting contests, or singing, or stair-climbing competitions, instead of hacking each other to bits or spraying poisons and flaming plastics on the 'enemy'.

The greatest fights are all with inner demons. And it's 'funny' how each side in a battle claims that God is on their side. How does that work?

Answer 9

yes i agree,men look more manly with swords and shields than with guns,you know shouting something before racing into battle

Answer 10

It is my view this was created because we are becoming weaker and wiser in our thinking. This is something to consider. Too bad we can't go back. We might be the only one left with the swords.??