Which do you think is more brutal, medieval warfare or modern warfare? Medieval warfare has swords and catapults while modern warfare has assault rifles and tanks. You could also talk about ancient warfare and Napoleonic warfare.

Medieval Warfare.

did you know nukes could kill like a jillion people

Medieval, definitely.

Medieval Warfare and medieval wars were just complete butchery.

I mean modern warfare is pretty brutal too, but still, not so much as medieval warfare.

At 8/20/11 10:49 PM, EmperorOfSwag wrote: did you know nukes could kill like a jillion people

He said more brutal, not more devastating.

Medieval. Swords, Maces, Cannons, Bows and Crossbows, and a plethora of other brutal weapons as opposed to today's Snipers, AR's, SMG's, RPG's, and other lame weapons that turned battles from brutal to bullshit.

Man, imagine cleaning up a castle after managing to defend an assault or something, there would be bodies which were crushed by rocks, bodies which were burned with boiling oil, not to count the countless bodies that died with arrows.

I don't know, I think Medieval warfare was way more brutal and violent.

Those both suck, I'm waiting for Battlefield 3

anal warfare

Medieval warfare was more bloody. There were no restrictions to weapons you could use (except automatic crossbow which was banned by some faggy pope who prolly got owned by it in the wars). People were destined to get harmed by heavy blunt smashing, or deadly cutting. If you were in infantry, you had to face the enemy, and that was bloody experience, no matter if you kill him, or he kills you. As an archer or trebuchet operator you couldn't feel safe too. You could get attacked anyhow.

Now most deadly weapons are banned from use, and if you get shot, you just have a single hole in your body, instead of a 7 inch cut across your arm or stomach. You can explde, yea. From a missle or grenade, but probably even if your hand is ripped apart, you're dead because blastwave damaged your brain, so it's not as bloody as medieval warfare for sure.

At 8/20/11 10:51 PM, Makeshift wrote:

At 8/20/11 10:49 PM, EmperorOfSwag wrote: did you know nukes could kill like a jillion people

He said more brutal, not more devastating.

brutal: savage; cruel; inhuman

from the latine brute

brute can be defined as: not characterized by intelligence or reason; irrational

i'd say nukes are befitting of the adjective "brutal", much more so than crafted metals with pointy edges

theres no such thing as cod medeval warfare u idot

At 8/20/11 10:58 PM, EmperorOfSwag wrote:

At 8/20/11 10:51 PM, Makeshift wrote:

At 8/20/11 10:49 PM, EmperorOfSwag wrote: did you know nukes could kill like a jillion people

He said more brutal, not more devastating.

brutal: savage; cruel; inhuman

from the latine brute

brute can be defined as: not characterized by intelligence or reason; irrational

i'd say nukes are befitting of the adjective "brutal", much more so than crafted metals with pointy edges

Killing a large group of people relatively quickly doesn't seem quite as brutal as slicing someone open and letting them bleed to death, or get an infection, be carried back home and have no way of treating it, later dying of a severe infection. I dunno, they're both pretty goddamn brutal.

At 8/20/11 11:00 PM, Makeshift wrote: Killing a large group of people relatively quickly doesn't seem quite as brutal

I'd say the radiation running through generations causing birth defects and mutations is pretty damn brutal

At 8/20/11 10:59 PM, KieranNG wrote: theres no such thing as cod medeval warfare u idot

That would be pretty awesome.

Soldiers have guns. Guns pierce armor. (Most of them, at least.)
Thread over.

In medieval warfare guts are spilled, organs fly and the aftermath is bloody, In modern warfare it's merely burned. Medieval wars usually cease when all the soldiers of one group are dead while Modern wars can end if the other side surrenders.

Medieval warfare was more brutal, but modern warfare has more destructive weapons, and more destructive effects on humans.

If you are looking for which causes more damage to the human body, then probably modern warfare. We like to think that when a bullet enters the body, it kills them, but its really the effects of the bullet that kills. Ever read about what a .22 does to the skull? It's not pretty. And that's just bullets. Lets not forget about bombs, biological warfare, chemical warfare, and nuclear warfare. Have a limb hacked off? Try having it severed by a molten piece of mangled metal that flew off of a truck as it buckled under the explosive force of an IED.

Everything medieval was more brutal. Humans just didn't give a fuck about others at all back then. However they could maim, torture, kill someone they just would.

Medieval.
Ever heard of Vlad the Impaler?

In terms of brutality, defiantly Medieval. The weapons were no where near as efficient as they are today. An arrow in the leg or being crushed by a boulder were far slower and more painful deaths than the methods of today. There were no painless medical procedures, and an injured limb usually meant amputation, and a large posibility of death by bleeding (Thats not to say the doctor will beat the infection). Enemies head would be slung into cities through catapults to spread plague amongst the civilians. Religion was usually involved, and soldiers had a tight morale, so there was no retreat. Surrender meant pillage and rape, there were no Human Rights, youth consription was universal, the list just goes on.

At 8/20/11 10:55 PM, Gerbil wrote: anal warfare

I fucking laughed at that good sir.You win a trophy for superior excellence on a forum and a guaranteed place for you and your descendants to live comfortably in my realm of sensual pleasures.

Well, modern warfare is a lot more damaging, but medieval was pretty much a bloodbath[:

Well it's kinda like this:

In Medieval Warfare, most of the time you will die a slow painful death.

In Modern Warfare, most of the time you will die a very quick death.

I would say Medieval Warfare is more brutal.

I don't care about modern brutality, English knights will kill you all with them pole-axes.

midEVIL warfare

At 8/20/11 11:00 PM, Makeshift wrote: Killing a large group of people relatively quickly doesn't seem quite as brutal as slicing someone open and letting them bleed to death, or get an infection, be carried back home and have no way of treating it, later dying of a severe infection. I dunno, they're both pretty goddamn brutal.

Exactly, the main difference that I think matters most is how personal it is. In medieval warfare, you were usually up close and personal with the individual you were fighting. Hand-to-hand combat where it was a test of an individual skills and strength. In modern warfare, the killing is mostly indiscriminate. You drop a bomb or blanket an area with gunfire. You have to think a lot faster and plan well ahead.

Both are equally savage, but in very different ways.

Is it even really a contest? Medival Warfare all the way. Those people fucking tortured you and no just your sissy little water boarding, no no they would boil you alive, they'd tie each of your limbs to a horse and have them ripped off.

Medieval warfare. I haven't tried it, but I would assume that modern weapons kills faster and more pain free then medieval weapons.