Anyone else feel like guns ruined warfare? War used to be about

File: IMG_6511.png (678KB, 870x885px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 870x885px

>>38527628
Are you trying to imply guns take no skill?

File: Enable- Secondary (1).jpg (13KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 284x177px

>>38527628
Yea i agree, i wish i could have been a Roman Hastatii in the Army, gradually becoming more skilled and able to move up to be a Principe, and maybe survive long enough to enjoy life in the back lines of the Triarii.
Seriously i dont care that there would be no internet or vidya, i just want to fight and possibly die for the glory of the Roman Republic.

>>38527628
t. never even fired a gun before. it's not like you just point and shoot, especially if you're trying to snipe someone over a mile away. you have to compensate for gravity, wind, movement of the target, as well as the environmental conditions that would affect the ballistics.

OP has no clue what he's talking about.

>>38527628
>>38527787
>how to spot an ISTP

Well, guns (especially the sniper rifles you mentioned) require a lot of training and skills. But still I agree with you. Wars were much more raw and different. We lost and also got something with the appearance of guns. Still, I would like to face the one who is about to kill me rather than getting 360 noscoped from some shitbunker.

Yes but not for that reason. The problem with modern warfare is that it takes too much to be competitive, you need billions upon billions of dollars, thousands of engineers to build equipement, etc., whereas earlier anyone could form a warband who was moderately wealth and start conquering shit.

>>38527799
What I mean is that in a gun fight it can be ended instantly with one bullet which kind of takes away from the thrill of warfare

>>38528039
Warfare isn't about thrills.

File: 1483260339089.jpg (34KB, 235x215px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 235x215px

>>38528039
you do realize that all it takes is is a small stab or slash wound for you to die from infection fever or die from the pain of having your limb cut off if youre lucky enough to get a wound there. what this >>38528131 guy said is truth modern warfare is the most humane way to put down your threats in most cases you dont have to even kill them simply wounding them would put a greater stress on the opposition due to them having to take care of the wounded. You might be a psychopath hope you get put on a list before you hurt someone.

>>38528344
I'd rather die knowing whats happening than getting my fucking head blown off before I can even process it

File: xbf.png (560KB, 997x601px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 997x601px

>>38528466
I dont think you would process an arrow going straight into the head at least if it hit the right place

>>38528466
>would rather die in agony, from either blood loss or infection than an instant death
okay

>>38527628
No, war used to be about getting marched off to fight some Lord's family feud for him and then getting ridden down by that same Lord's cousins cavalry, by a guy whose armour cost more than your lifetime earnings.

>>38527628
>War used to be about how skilled you were with a sword or a bow
No
You training your entire life and being the best sword master on the planet won't win you a war
You will just die because 5 people are attacking you at once

>>38528956
Not if you fought for the glory of Rome.

>>38530009
Which glory, the glory of dying fighting for Rome under Pompeius against the traitor Caesar, or maybe a few years later, fighting for glorious Caesar against the traitor Pompeius?