Guns the great equalizer of Combat, and the destroyers of Honor ?

Up until the invention of guns combat had been honorable and entertaining (if your in to the gladiator thing) even so it was personal skill against personal skill. Now we just push buttons and the enemy dies. There is no art or form to it like when it was melee or archery based. Is it possible to create some sort of counter balance like better armor to make firearms less uninteresting and lethal, like some sort of armor or anything else ?

It's still personal skill vs. personal skill, just with an added element of luck and complication. Modern combat is far more of a science than pre-gunpowder warfare. I for one am glad that some glorification has been taken from warfare; it's humanity's curse to war, and anything that lessens that a bit is fine by me.
 
I said it's not easy but it is possible and more easy then with guns.

No, it's not more easy than with guns. Trying to pay attention to multiple things happening at once is immensely difficult even when we're talking about nothing more than "two people talking at the same time". Being able to respond to two people trying to stick sharp objects in you is incredibly difficult.
 
It's still personal skill vs. personal skill, just with an added element of luck and complication. Modern combat is far more of a science than pre-gunpowder warfare. I for one am glad that some glorification has been taken from warfare; it's humanity's curse to war, and anything that lessens that a bit is fine by me.

In my opinion it is psychologically harder to kill with swords you really felt it...
With guns it's so easy I mean if I had to kill someone I think stabbing them would haunt me a lot more then shooting them.
 
No, it's not more easy than with guns. Trying to pay attention to multiple things happening at once is immensely difficult even when we're talking about nothing more than "two people talking at the same time". Being able to respond to two people trying to stick sharp objects in you is incredibly difficult.

Look if two people are pointing guns at me and they say to me "drop it" well I'd be pretty stupid to try shoot one because if the other is even semi-competent he will shoot me.

But if two guys with swords are in front of me and they say "drop your sword" well at least I have a chance.
 
But if two guys with swords are in front of me and they say "drop your sword" well at least I have a chance.

Not really, I have a little experience with multiple attackers, and it's really easy to lose track of where they are.

Mind you, this is unarmed, 4 vs 1, and a simple training exercise.

Now imagining that scenario with swords and killing intent, means I would more likely than not be dead 4 times over.
 
Not really, I have a little experience with multiple attackers, and it's really easy to lose track of where they are.

Mind you, this is unarmed, 4 vs 1, and a simple training exercise.

Now imagining that scenario with swords and killing intent, means I would more likely than not be dead 4 times over.

Yeah 4 vs 1 with swords you would probably be dead even 2 vs 1 probably. But if you are more skilled then you can win against multiple opponents but in the gun scenario you are certain to die.

Even bows require more skill then guns. That's why the early armies switched over. The early fire arms were actually worse then bows but it took a lot longer to train a bowman.
 
Not really, I have a little experience with multiple attackers, and it's really easy to lose track of where they are.

Mind you, this is unarmed, 4 vs 1, and a simple training exercise.

Now imagining that scenario with swords and killing intent, means I would more likely than not be dead 4 times over.

Yeah. Even two on one - well, ask anyone who has taken part in a pillow fight. While your attention is on one guy, someone else has a pretty good chance of hitting you with a pillow.

Yeah 4 vs 1 with swords you would probably be dead even 2 vs 1 probably. But if you are more skilled then you can win against multiple opponents but in the gun scenario you are certain to die.

No more certain than with swords.

Guy #2 with a sword can just as easily kill you while you try to take down his partner than if we were talking guns, subject to the differences between how hard it is to take someone down with a gun vs. a sword (which has nothing to do with numbers).

You seem to have this idea that you can block multiple blows at once, which is essentially what the swordsman has to do.

Multiple blows, from different directions, at the same time.
 
No more certain than with swords.

Guy #2 with a sword can just as easily kill you while you try to take down his partner than if we were talking guns, subject to the differences between how hard it is to take someone down with a gun vs. a sword (which has nothing to do with numbers).

You seem to have this idea that you can block multiple blows at once, which is essentially what the swordsman has to do.

Multiple blows, from different directions, at the same time.
Yeah, and the longer you have to fight Guy #1 the more chance Guy #2 would stab you.

Though maybe if thick armor is involved the sword scenario is slightly less dangerous than the gunfight one.
 
Yeah 4 vs 1 with swords you would probably be dead even 2 vs 1 probably. But if you are more skilled then you can win against multiple opponents but in the gun scenario you are certain to die.

Nonsense.

Another art we practice involves standing with one guy in front of you and another in back. the object is to keep your ki extended, cut the first guy, and then spin around, and cut the second guy before he can cut you.

Needless to say, it doesn't always work, even when the two attackers are less skilled than you.
again, this is practice, with no killing intent and enough distance between you so that there is theoretically ample time to react.

so the probability of you actually winning a scenario with multiple attackers is low.

I by no means think I'm some sort of martial arts expert, but even a little experience gives you a different perspective on things.
 
One thing to point out about combat with melee or ranged weapons vs. multiple opponents:

The engagement range of melee weapons is much shorter than ranged weapons, so it'd be much easier to maneuver around so that instead of a 2 vs. 1 battle, you have 2 (1 vs. 1) battles. It's much more possible to defeat your opponents in detail, because the shorter range of their weapons makes it harder for them to engage you simultaneously.
 
One thing to point out about combat with melee or ranged weapons vs. multiple opponents:

The engagement range of melee weapons is much shorter than ranged weapons, so it'd be much easier to maneuver around so that instead of a 2 vs. 1 battle, you have 2 (1 vs. 1) battles. It's much more possible to defeat your opponents in detail, because the shorter range of their weapons makes it harder for them to engage you simultaneously.

That may be true in some conditions, but not so much in others.
 
That may be true in some conditions, but not so much in others.

Basileus is right on this point. One defender can hold his own against two attackers if all are armed with melee weapons and the defender is skilled, alert, and on an even footing with them. It is extremely difficult for the two attackers to coordinate their actions well enough to strike simultaneously; in practice the defender can switch back and forth as needed. A skilled defender will also maneuver with the intent of isolating his opponents by forcing them to maneuver to avoid each other and approach him, which allows him to face them individually rather than simultaneously.

Does this mean the defender will win? Probably not. He has to devote so much attention to defense that he has little or no time for attack, and attacking wins fights, not defense. If the fight goes on long enough they will wear him down to the point that he no longer is able to fend them both off and they will get through his defense. For him to win he must have enough advantage in skill and/or ability to be able to carry the fight to his attackers, which is difficult to achieve in practice.

But that's two on one and with melee weapons. More attackers make the defender's job progressively more difficult, until it becomes impossible. Substitute missile weapons and even two on one becomes problematic, because the greater engagement ranges make it more difficult for the defender to isolate his attackers.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes my fellow compatriot I have.



Of course pride is a major factor.



Yes , Yes I am eccentric , your just using the word insane so were basically on the same page.:cool:


I tracked my descendants to vikings the ones who raped and murdered. Power is the only thing worth having in the universe power over death immortality eternal youth without these things life is pointless.



Im not that evil a fair bloodlustish fight is all I need.



Not Romantic or Immature its simply about the survival of my culture and people and the viking way of life that I refuse to let die out just because were in a modern age with "technology" and "morals"



To a non viking I suppose it is :cool:



Tell me you dont want god like powers TELL ME TELL ME YOU.. DONT......... WANT.......THEM

WTF?

Did you mix up the LSD and corn flakes this morning?

You are kicked for a week. That will give you time to come down from the trip.

Of course if this is the real you posting, don't bother coming back a'tall.
 
I'm not sure where the idea that melee weapons are obsolete comes from. They've shifted to a secondary role at best, but they'll always have a place, and as with most weapons training is vitally important.

The last widely reported battle to feature bayonets in a major role happened in 2004, which is not exactly an age ago.
 
Basileus is right on this point. One defender can hold his own against two attackers if all are armed with melee weapons and the defender is skilled, alert, and on an even footing with them.

Only if something is preventing the two attackers from just ganging up on him.

It is extremely difficult for the two attackers to coordinate their actions well enough to strike simultaneously; in practice the defender can switch back and forth as needed. A skilled defender will also maneuver with the intent of isolating his opponents by forcing them to maneuver to avoid each other and approach him, which allows him to face them individually rather than simultaneously.

In practice, the defender doesn't have the opportunity to switch back and forth as needed because the attackers are both within reach at the same time (and if not, see below).

Manuevering like that is easier said than done, depending on terrain and such.

But it doesn't take tremendous effort to surround someone, or be on both sides of someone, and any moves the defender makes the attackers can follow.


I'm not going to say that 2-1 is impossible - but it's definitely difficult even if your opponents are clods.
 
Top