Gunpowder Killed Men.

>It's my opinion now that the invention of the bow and arrow is the cause of a higher population of weak men with lesser genetics.

really made me think

>gun recoil

How would wristlets even handle it?

This implies that at any point in history the main evolutionary pressure on human males was war. It also implies that because of firearms, there are now 300 pound neckbeards killing spec ops in the field. The fact is, soldiers are still physically fit because they have to carry/wear many pounds of equipment and need the ability to move heavy things (including a person) and to fight in hand to hand situations. Also, some of the physical fitness is just a byproduct of having to endure the mental game of trying to get people to break by making them do extremely difficult yet mindnumbingly boring activities. Also, nowadays soldiers are smarter than ever, learning foreign language/culture and politics, communications/electronics, weapons, as well as the tactics needed to survive a firefight (hint: you can dodge a sword, but not a bullet). Also strategy has come a long way from "go over the Alps." As military arsenals and technology continue to advance, people are starting to look like soft sacks of meat in comparison. It takes a smart man with mental fortitude not to panic when at any moment a massive fiery explosion or a bullet could take your life.

>>42773886
Not really true due to draw strength and making one more efficient. Being better hunting means more food = more gains. Plus you have to be able to hike/navigate not just a follow an animal around with a plow like a farmer

>>42773937
the soldiers of today are worms compared to the brutes of the middle ages and the times before those.
Yeah, an American soldier can carry 60 pounds of equipment in his backpack, but all it takes is one bullet from a skinny shitskin to take him down.
Take away the guns and you tell me who wins.

>>42773937
You're missing the whole point. The only /danger/ that modern soldiers face today are TOOLS of the enemy. Bullets, explosions, air strikes. What do all of these have in common? They don't require man on man combat. You can kill someone a hundred yards away because you "kept your head" and didn't panic. I have all of the respect in the world for our soldiers, but killing someone with a gun is not anywhere NEAR killing someone in single combat with a handheld weapon. In modern warfare, the person with the better aim wins. It can be a mouthbreathing shitskin ISIS soldier who can hold a gun steady and pull the trigger.

>>42773810

You are wrong, since the beginning of time being good at individual fighting is not the same as being good at war fighting

Skirmishers killed tons of guys too

Battles were won by tactics, ambushes, traps and equipment, not by who was stronger or more skilled

Wars were won by strategy, lies, resources

For example, gauls were better in 1vs1 fighting, but romans were far more disciplined and had better tactics, when romans were ambushed and it became a full brawl they often lost

>>42773810
>He doesn't put gunpowder in his shakes
lemme see them sikh gains scrub

>>42774087

Do you think in war people want fairness? war is not fucking mma, ancient war wasn't fucking mma either

Also in ancient war battles weren't exactly won by just killing more, the average soldier saw a fucking frontline of hoplites trying to stab each other between the huge shields, with really few casualties for both sides, then suddently a entire line collapsed because cavalry went behind or other troops encircled them. Casualties and killing were done 90% in the chase that came after

It was little about skill, more about discipline and mental fortitude