Would you rather wars be fought with sword (medieval) or with Guns & rockets (modern)?

Would you rather wars be fought with sword(medieval) or with Guns & rockets(modern)?

  • Modern!Would you rather wars be fought with sword(medieval) or with Guns & rockets(modern)?
    27% (3)57% (16)49% (19)Vote
  • Medieval!Would you rather wars be fought with sword(medieval) or with Guns & rockets(modern)?
    73% (8)43% (12)51% (20)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
4|20

Most Helpful Guy

  • Wars got way worse with guns and vehicles. Modern time wars are worse than before, they're bigger and there's more casualties. They last longer too.

    1|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 4

  • I think people would be faced with the reality of killing someone more with swords and so, I hope, there would be less of it. Also, you are safer with a sword than guns... although for women a gun would be easier as a sword is too heavy... so maybe guns then? I dunno... whatever, I hate war.

    0|1
    0|0
  • modern because fewer of our soldiers would die

    0|2
    1|0
  • Swords! Because they're shiny, and they're pretty and they can have intricate designs! Plus, the sounds they make when clashing with each other. Sword fights are precious!

    0|1
    0|0
  • Medieval is more badass.

    0|1
    0|0

What Guys Said 19

  • The Geneva Convention forbids weapons with devastating effects - exploding rounds, blinding weapons, things like that. With modern technology and no restraints we could unleash weapons that would destroy a soldier's sight, hearing, or cook them from the inside out.

    The world did learn a lesson as it transitioned from the old tactics of huge armies into mechanised combined arms in World War 1, as the gas rolled across No Man's Land. You don't want to be the one who does it first, because you give them carte blanche to do it back to you. The fear of retaliation kept both sides from using poison gas, even though when the war started, people were convinced the advancements of the last two decades in both delivery methods and the gasses themselves were going to be catastrophic.

    You get rid of guns, you'll just have arrows and spears. Being able to strike at a distance is such an advantage it won't be given up.

    0|2
    0|0
  • media.giphy.com/media/KmG26GNmdWOUE/giphy.gif

    Swords all day!! As I am pretty skilled with a Chinese broad and katana. And there's honor in a war of swords.

    0|1
    0|1
    • 2mo

      Where is the honor?

    • 2mo

      @Maik567

      Haha I was more joking with that statement. But what I was getting at I guess is with swords, mostly skill comes into play. How well you handle your sword and are trained in close quarters combat. But both your weapons are usually evenly matched.

      As with swords Noones weapon is more superior than the other. Pistol vs machine gun. Or rocket launcher vs pistol. Or stay back and snipe. You don't really have rose worries in a sword fight mate.

    • 2mo

      I guess if it was just restricted to swords, but in medieval combat they did use spears and bows etc. Your example is kinda like if modern wars were restricted to just pistols. Shooting takes skill too.

  • I'd prefer wars to be unarmed lol, just huge fucking brawls.

    0|3
    0|0
  • Medieval but with modern ROEs and antibiotics/hygiene. There'd be way less civilian casualties and some flanking move followed by a retreat would end a war with relatively few soldiers killed.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I'm trying to decide if it's worse getting blowned up, or shot to death compared to getting a sword piercing your throat, being shot by an arrow or being cut until you bleed to death.

    0|1
    0|0
  • High-Meideval weaponry, but with nuclear weapons still available. That would minimize war casualties.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Guns... only because I don't want to die by getting stabbed 😬 that's just horrible in my opinion... although in modern, getting blown up sounds bad as well XD

    0|1
    0|0
  • with paintball guns so nobody dies.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Medieval is wayyy more entertaining, plus it's a lot more cool and wars were more classy back then in my opinion. It was SHUNNED badly back then to kill any civilians or artists or whatever, now not so much.

    0|1
    0|0
  • As much as I love the middle ages, I would pick modern. I'd rather get shot with a gun than hacked apart with swords and battle-axes.

    0|2
    0|0
  • That's a tough question, hand to hand combat was a lot more gruesome, but it would probably mean a lot less death than modern warfare.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Well... medieval seems to hurt a little more.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Modern warfare would result in fewer casualties. That pic is so badass though man

    0|1
    0|0
  • How about none

    0|1
    0|0
  • Well most American troops are killed more with IED's than actual guns nowadays.

    But yeah modern. Less pain you just die super fast. A large portion of those that died in more primitive times didn't die right away. They'd just get seriously injured and die a slow agonizing death from infection.

    0|2
    0|0
    • 2mo

      But these days a lot of soldiers lose arms or legs, even their genitalia, in combat.

    • 2mo

      @JohnDoe3000 People lost all those things back in medieval times as well. And then it was accompanied by the foul smell of rot setting in which made it all that much more agonizing and humiliating. Hopefully within a couple of decades we'll have robotic limbs as good as the one Will Smith has in I Robot so losing a limb won't be as traumatic or ruin peoples lives as much.

    • 2mo

      If you lost even one limb in medieval warfare you would most likely die soon after. Nowadays we have lots of triple amputees coming home.

  • Swords look so much more painful.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Pretty sure medieval with modern medicine would have the lowest casualty rate, so how about that!

    0|2
    0|0
  • I prefer they be fought with bouquets of flowers.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Medieval, it's just a dick fight really

    0|2
    0|0
Loading...