Should we go back to fighting with swords?

[drc65]

I had a strange dream last night where the world leaders decided to destroy all weapons and replace them with spears, swords and arrows. How do you think this would play out? Would war become more frequent but less deadly?

 

[Shimus]

No. It would would become fetid, horrible even. Guns kill fast and even if they gut-shot, faster then dying of infection of medieval warfare.

Now don't get me wrong -- I miss swords; I consider them to be graceful weapons of war and probably one of the classier eras of warfare. But the war and the conditions that followed back then never warranted going back to them unless in certain situations (close combat). Even then the wounds of the infected could fester and kill you. Medicine was limited. Even if medicine and science are better, I don't see the weapons reverting backwards. The newer era was too etched on guns from a young age. The eras have shifted; and unless futuristic swords are made (plasma beams, light sabers, what have you) there's no chance for it, sadly.

Plus stacking that many bodies in close vicinity in a battlefield friendly fire even takes effect. That's why wars are fought in squads and groups and and at range. The world had it's melee phase; now we're stuck in the gunfire phase.

 

[drc65]

No. It would would become fetid, horrible even. Guns kill fast and even if they gut-shot, faster then dying of infection of medieval warfare.

Now don't get me wrong -- I miss swords; I consider them to be graceful weapons of war and probably one of the classier eras of warfare. But the war and the conditions that followed back then never warranted going back to them unless in certain situations (close combat). Even then the wounds of the infected could fester and kill you. Medicine was limited. Even if medicine and science are better, I don't see the weapons reverting backwards. The newer era was too etched on guns from a young age. The eras have shifted; and unless futuristic swords are made (plasma beams, light sabers, what have you) there's no chance for it, sadly.

Plus stacking that many bodies in close vicinity in a battlefield friendly fire even takes effect. That's why wars are fought in squads and groups and and at range. The world had it's melee phase; now we're stuck in the gunfire phase.

Don't you think that people would think twice before going to war again following a brutal sword battle? When someone kills 10 people with a drone they are detached from the action of killing, they are less likely to protest the war. I'm aware this will never happen, however. It's practically impossible.

 

[Rowe992]

Using swords to fight again? LOL! This post is so funny. The use of swords in warfare were by brave warriors and these days there are a lot of cowards who will not do such thing. Swords take too long to defeat the enemy and therefore no army in the world would want to go back to those days. Also the thought of being chopped by a sword sounds a lot more painful that being shot.

 

[Radix24]

Swords were part of the military tech tree, but they are now mostly obsolete. Only when all ammunition run out can this be a reality. It still has its use in melee or close quarters combat, but I do not think world leaders will go back to fighting with them. It is an arms race. Be the fastest to create a weapon that will get you the advantage. Sadly, sword usage no longer gives you a real advantage.

 

[Shimus]

It is an arms race. Be the fastest to create a weapon that will get you the advantage. Sadly, sword usage no longer gives you a real advantage.

This is entirely why we won't go back to that era. It's an arms race, always has been since time immemorial, and swords were just outpaced. I love them; they're beautiful. But they outlived their usefulness. The only time I see swords making a comeback is if something happens on a global scale (post-apocalyptic, zombies, nuclear war) that forces use of firearms back to a primitive state of scrounging for ammo then we'll use bladed weapons. Not until.

 

[elmarianexx]

Haha, that made me laugh. It's not a bad idea. I would actually support that idea and think positively about it.
Because the soliders would have to learn how to fight with swords.

 

[Shimus]

I feel through extensive training any man could feel like a warrior. It's just we use guns, sniper rifles, bombs, explosives.. so many other things not bladed weaponry that those courses fall to the wayside in preference of ranged combat.

But being a romanticist it would be fun to see, I admit. Even have swordfighting contests again. Arenas.

 

[dariel2323]

A really strange dream "Fighting with swords." Every day I am more convinced that dreams are crazy. Fighting with swords, guns, bombs, and all these things. Anyway people die, maybe less but eventually die. Greetings and thanks for sharing your strange dream.

 

[orangesunset]

A bayonet is a knife that goes on the end of a rifle, it still has use today. Military members would not carry knifes if they where not potential weapons. During WW1, most of the trench fighting was done with bayonets, trench knives, clubs and sharpened shovels. In close quarters a knife or club can be far more dangerous, and you do not need to worry about reloading it.

 

[Redheart]

The point of destroying would be to give peace a chance not substituting guns with another swords which are less lethal. War isn't about "class." It's brutal. And . . . there are no rules. You do whatever it takes to win the war.

Nonetheless if I was to entertain the thought for a moment, I think there would be more wars because those who police other nations now won't have the advantage of better weapons. That would leave "rogue" nations free to do whatever they please. Try to picture American soldiers/warriors armed with knives, spears and arrows aboard a ship traveling to the gulf to engage an army that's also armed with swords and spears. It would be a battle worth watching.

 

[Lieutenant]

This military forum only encourages serious discussions that are military related.

Thread closed.