"If gunpowder were never discovered, warfare would be less deadly"

[Jmpace52]

Bullshit. I am so tired of hearing this. Whoever believes this needs to open a fucking history book. Pretty much all of the worst massacres were carried out before 1899 (the cut-off period between antique and modern firearms, per ATF definition). Lances and polearms while on horseback can just just as much, if not more damage than any gun could (same with swords).

No. #1: Zhang Xianzhong (1 million kills) (1645-46)

No. #2: General Dido (800,000 kills) (1645)

No. #3: Abdul Hamid II (80,000-400,000 kills) (1894-96)

No. #4: Mithridates (80,000-150,000 kills) (88 BC)

No. #5: Andronikos I Komnenos (tens of thousands killed) (1182)

No. #6: Crusaders (12,000 kills) (1096)

No. #7: Nasuhzade Ali Pasha (52,000 kills) (1822)

No. #8: Piyale Pasha (20,000 kills) (1570)

No. #9: Alexander Suvorov and the Cossack Army (20,000 kills) (1794)

No. #10: Anti-Chinese Spanish and Filipino belligerents (17,000-22,000 kills) (1639)

 

[mogger123]

All old numbers are made up + exaggerated. Plus society is just a lot less retarded there days

It's very intuitive that you can do a lot more damage to a crowd with a chain gun than a sword

 

[brianxx]

But war was more fun in the past. You can be killed by an axe to your head but at least you could see the face of your killer. And Im pretty sure he was a badass Chad warrior. It's ok and fair to me if I was killed on the battlefield like that.

With modern warfare of drones and missles, you will most likely be killed by a skinny fat nerd hiding in an office.

In the upcoming war between China and the US, most US soldiers will be killed by pic related other than a Godlike Lu Bu. And that makes me want to puke.