I was watching some world war 2 footage that was taken in Poland and they actually still had a Cavalry. And it showed all these men and horses that were just slaughtered. It was pretty sad. You would have thought that the First World War had enough lessons for everyone to realize the times of Cavalry due to machine guns was over. These were lessons that the Germans and French learned very early on in WWI. WWI was very interesting because for many men war still had that adventurous mystique about it. There are so many accounts of British and French and German soldiers who couldn't wait to get into that war and find glory on the battlefield. But soon they learned that war had changed. Technology had changed and there wasn't anything glorious about it. For centuries and even thousands of years before it, battles generally didn't take longer than hours. In WW1 battles could take months and soldiers could be entrenched for months. It's interesting to think about it. Would you rather be an Athenian and be in hand to hand combat and maybe see your neighbors or your family die in bloody, savage hand to hand combat that last for a few hours? Or in a trench for months?
I never wanted to be tied down to one area. Freedom of movement is for me necessary. So although both situations suck I would have to take the shield and sword.
I think I would agree because while it may be brutal and savage and insane it doesn't last nearly as long.
I wouldn't want to be in a foxhole for months but I'm a pretty good shot and i don't think I would be very good at sword fighting
