Hand-to-hand vs. Long Range (Weaponry)

[Warbsywoo]

Which is better overall, you think?
I mean weapons from long ago, like bows and arrows, and swords.
Not guns.

In my opinion, long range weapons were better.
They could mow down long lines of enemy footmen before they could even come within reach of the bowmen.
Even with thicker armor, longbows were able to destroy huge armies that vastly outnumbered them.

 

[The Scriblerian]

At the heart of every battle and every form of fighting hand to hand is the basic and most complex. There is no weapon or battle occurring that didn't in some way stem from hand to hand or in some way have it's beginning there. Even ranged weapons points are to avoid up close battle like hand to hand etc. And sword fighting has hand to hand mixed in.

Also, while I don't have a problem with bows and arrows, guns and new age killing machines and bombs etc have ruined what a good fight really is. One man facing off against another with nothing but what is in their hands.

 

[Warbsywoo]

At the heart of every battle and every form of fighting hand to hand is the basic and most complex. There is no weapon or battle occurring that didn't in some way stem from hand to hand or in some way have it's beginning there. Even ranged weapons points are to avoid up close battle like hand to hand etc. And sword fighting has hand to hand mixed in.

Also, while I don't have a problem with bows and arrows, guns and new age killing machines and bombs etc have ruined what a good fight really is. One man facing off against another with nothing but what is in their hands.

I agree with the last part, there's really not much honor in fighting any more, I mean it doesn't take as much skill in shooting guns than it was wielding bows and arrows, much less wielding a sword.

And yeah, I guess you're right.
Ranged weapons are only there to prevent the close battles, where they will surely lose.
It's the combination I guess that just won it for bowmen, back in the day.
And concentration, don't forget that.

 

[BustaMo]

Personally it depends on the situation or game type. If it's like an FF game, I'm all for Swords and close hand-to-hand combat. If you stick me in a game of Halo or out in the real world pickign off kids with water bombs, I'm all for long-ranged junk.

 

[Taylor Swift]

Well i would have to go with hand-to-hand because i think swords and stuff are bad ass looking lol

 

[Mitsuki]

Well if you've watched The Last Samurai, it explains the honor of fighting with your swords and such. The Japanese didn't use guns and cannons like the Americans did. And I really respect that fighting style a lot.

So the question...well I think they're both equal when it comes to superiority. Both have their advantages. With swords, you're more guaranteed that the person is truly dead for swords are extremely deadly. Besides, it is one of the common weapons used back then and has always served its purposes.

As for long-ranged, you're more in the defensive mode and yet can still kill someone even by afar, and of course reasons explained in the above posts.

 

[charliepanayi]

Ranged weaponry since I'd much prefer to be a long way off from your opponent

 

[Rorolina Frixell]

i would go with hand to hand combat to ranged weapons

 

[Johnny Mo]

since ancient times archers and slingmen were seen as coward for not fighting like men and i agree with the so hand to hands better.

 

[Clyde]

In the open, ranged weapons... In close quarters or close range, Hand to Hand definately

 

[Hell_Razer]

hand to hand for me, only sissy's use weapons like in a fight i mean