Do you think medieval warfare was "cooler" than it is now?

I feel like it would make things more even. All you had to do was raise a well equipped army, which while it may be costly, would not be like today where governments have things like giant warships and drones and missiles and aircraft and tanks which basically negate all that. I think there's a certain romanticism to riding on horseback and marching with your bannermen.


Most Helpful Guy

Have an opinion?


Send It!

What Girls Said 2

  • Your question reminded me of The Art of War by Sun Tzu. I have to get into that again, amazing read.

    Anyway, I'd put modern warfare down as the most dangerous and ideal. With the range of rifles, mortars, grenades, never mind heavy artillery and bombing by aircraft. Medieval warfare was risky, it involved wearing heavy armor, close contact, and the risk of disease. The most dangerous thing about warfare back in those times was disease.

    • Maybe but my life got no better after I read it.

      you mean least dangerous not most?

  • Medieval warfare is similar to modern warfare. Those with huge human resources and money to spend win.


What Guys Said 2

  • For the nobility perhaps. The vast majority of the people fighting were peasants however, and there was nothing glamorous about their lives.

  • It has always been the same, whether it's America using drones to blow up insurgents, or Rome crushing barbarians with thousands of legions, the tech and methods may have changed but the wars haven't.