Ancient weapons made the world whole lot interesting until guns happened

[Busgosu]

I will just say that plenty of smaller, less technologically adept, parties have defeated larger, more technologically advanced parties in modern war.
.

First that comes to mind

 

[Karl_Hungus]

First that comes to mind

Yes. Most people don't know that this was a real war. I'm glad you brought this to light.

 

[Bacco]

I think actual history may disappoint TS

 

[jericksen5]

Just look at the U.S. since WWII. Not many wins besides like Panama and Grenada. The fact is that the U.S. is a joke, militarily, even though always superior technologically to their intended victims. Peasants have been kicking Uncle Sam's ass since WWII. Facts. Anyway, I'm not even going to keep on.

You’re kidding right? Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world before desert storm. The US steamrolled their entire army in a matter of weeks. The US literally has no equal militarily and it’s not even close.

 

[Busgosu]

Yes. Most people don't know that this was a real war. I'm glad you brought this to light.

 

[Contempt]

Yes, archers were terrifying in mid to late Medieval warfare, but, eventually armour got so good, then didn't even need shields. Arrows would literally glide off the armour which was stronger and angled to deflect. Knights were really only susceptible to other knights until guns, cannons, and the rise of professional armies and the widespread use of mercenaries allowed for pike formations to counter cavalry. Between then guns, the knights went from the blitzkrieg that couldn't be countered, to taking a more back seat approach to leading through the officer corps.

They were never anywhere as effective as you seem to think. By the time they got to the full plate stage their enemies would just target their horses with arrows.

How effective do you think a knight that needs assistance to stand once he has been unseated is? How quickly are they exhausted once they have to carry that armour around on foot?

Hit and run. You don't need to get through their armor if you target their horses and supplies. Also it takes ages to put on all that armor so ambushes at night while in camp were highly effective.

 

[bubbleboyjones]

If you are talking from a strictly selfish 'entertainment' perspective like you are in the future 200 years watching the history channel the correct answer is nuclear weapons ruined war.

Before we had the top powers fighting with each other directly but since M.A.D. doctrine everything is in the proxy wars and toned down.

 

[Karl_Hungus]

You’re kidding right? Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world before desert storm. The US steamrolled their entire army in a matter of weeks. The US literally has no equal militarily and it’s not even close.

And, they let the Iraqi army initiate guerilla action until they were chased out of the country, as in every other "war" since WWII, besides a pittance.

 

[Busgosu]

If you are talking from a strictly selfish 'entertainment' perspective like you are in the future 200 years watching the history channel the correct answer is nuclear weapons ruined war.

Before we had the top powers fighting with each other directly but since M.A.D. doctrine everything is in the proxy wars and toned down.

yeah war is dying bro, it used to be so much more fun before!

 

[bubbleboyjones]

yeah war is dying bro, it used to be so much more fun before!

 

[Busgosu]

 

[Cariñito]

The Vietnam War throws your argument out of the window.

"Throughout history, in various wars and conflicts, there have been a number of victories won by a smaller force against a larger enemies. This shows that manpower and status never mattered, it all came down to individual skill-set."

This will hold true regardless of how advanced the weaponry becomes. The will to fight will always be the determining factor.

If the plan was to annihilate the entire country of Vietnam than they could have easily done that very simply. It wasn't a war of conquest wasn't even technically a real war It was an operation or a conflict. So that theory doesn't hold up.

 

[plataoplombo]

It's all different variations of the same thing if you really look closely.

Longbow = rifle
Catapult = artillery
Horse archers = technicals

Hell, even Davinci had early plans for a tank.

 

[deucesarewild]

They were never anywhere as effective as you seem to think. By the time they got to the full plate stage their enemies would just target their horses with arrows.

How effective do you think a knight that needs assistance to stand once he has been unseated is? How quickly are they exhausted once they have to carry that armour around on foot?

Hit and run. You don't need to get through their armor if you target their horses and supplies. Also it takes ages to put on all that armor so ambushes at night while in camp were highly effective.

Well, that's why they developed barding for their horses. Sure it takes age, and sure it's expensive, and hit and run works against any army, but on the battlefield they were supreme until the aforementioned stuff developed.

 

[Contempt]

Well, that's why they developed barding for their horses. Sure it takes age, and sure it's expensive, and hit and run works against any army, but on the battlefield they were supreme until the aforementioned stuff developed.

Horse archers with hit and run tactics were annihilating heavily armored, elite troops since long before the middle ages. See what the Hun did to the Romans.

Much of what people hear about combat of heavily armored knights came from the English/French battles. It was effective because they both fought the same way, in other words, stupidly. Then chuck in the English longbowman and crossbows which absolutely crushed the Heavily armored French knights... also the shitfight that was the crusades.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

If the plan was to annihilate the entire country of Vietnam than they could have easily done that very simply. It wasn't a war of conquest wasn't even technically a real war It was an operation or a conflict. So that theory doesn't hold up.

The USA wasn't at war with the entire country of Vietnam though...only the Vietcong. There's a major difference.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Any history buffs can correct me if i'm right or wrong here. Here is what I think;

Guns are the Ghetto of all weapons in my opinion. Unless if you're a skilled sniper who can snipe at great distance, no one give a shit about your feats (reason why only snipers are mentioned in modern history). They're meaningless and is one of the most laziest invention.

They've ruined and made the world completely unbalanced and less interesting in the last 200 years.

Compared to swords, daggers, spears, axe...you know the rest.

Throughout history, in various wars and conflicts, there have been a number of victories won by a smaller force against a larger enemies. This shows that manpower and status never mattered, it all came down to individual skill-set.

Swordsmen themselves need good navigational skills, tactics, understanding of foreign seas and terrains, grit, instinct and are seen as irreplaceable mentors to the next generation. So, they're highly prestigious and respected.

One quick look at wiki will show you most cultures crafted their own unique ancient weapons, fighting styles and have records of their kingdoms and rulers. Meaning, most of Europe outside the Mediterranean, Asia and E.Africa remained culturally preserved and undisturbed from the big powers for thousand years. There have been accounts where Rome, Persia and China were said to be terrified of their neighbors so much that they built long walls to protect themselves.

Until the advent of modern weapons happened and changed everything.

TLDR; World went from this

To this

All of what you said applies to combat with firearms as well. Each nation has their own weapons they have developed. Tactics vehicles etc. It's just evolution

 

[crabmeat]

The USA wasn't at war with the entire country of Vietnam though...only the Vietcong. There's a major difference.

Only the Viet Cong?

 

[Misanthropist]

TS does like to ramble a bit.......

Don’t mind me, read what I said on the first line.

I’m not sure what you’re even trying to imply here, but I’m not sure you do either.

Most of what I think you are trying to say is patently false.

What i’m trying to say here is that wars were fought evenly back then.

Sorry everyone but I have hard time thinking two enemies with horses and swords going at each other is the same as poor countries with junk against countries with better weapons and i’m also talking about fleets of carriers, drones and mechanised infantries.

Vietnam, Aghanistan and Iraq had 10x more death toll (millions killed) compared to few 1000s of US soldiers. Go figure…

Are you telling me this

Is the same as this where their opponents had to resort to hiding in the jungle for this very reason?

 

[SummerStriker]

yeah war is dying bro, it used to be so much more fun before!

I mean, if an asshole wizard gave me a choice between being in a modern or ancient war, I'm going ancient 10 out of 10 times.

Ancient wars, worst case you get starved out during a siege. That sucks, I won't deny.

But most of the time you spend a couple months camping with all of your own best friends and family. And then you have one fucking battle. If you start losing, you just flee so only like 10% of you die. And then you go home like nothing ever happened.

Modern war, maybe you listen to shelling every day for 5-10 years. Who knows what horrors you'll see. It's fucked.