why aren't wars resolved this way?

why aren't wars resolved this way? the leaders of the countries choose the best warriors and the weapons with which to fight, the one who wins wins the battle, there may be several battles and whoever wins more wins the main war
instead there are millions of dead and long years of fighting

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine a king who fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be a sight?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most did historically

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most did, it was customary. Now just imagine modern politicians, Orange Man or Senile Pedo grabbing a gun and going to the frontlines to kill slavs. That will be inspiring.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because this method requires good faith on the part of the loser. Why would I, perfectly able to fight my own battles, choose to surrender because another man lost his battle?

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why don't they have bake-offs, most delicious cupcake wins?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the French insisted on murdering their King.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there are no pacts between lion and man OP

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't the Japanese shoot one arrow at each other at the start of a battle and if they killed the general they won? Bows are very ceremonial because of that over there for that reason but I heard it from a mayo monkey's documentary on ancient Japan sooo...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lol that's bullshit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lol that's bullshit

      It happened once in the Genpei war or at least in the Tale of Heike. One dude was a really good archer and hit a guy on top of the helmet to show off, but he hot captured and they cut the tendons of his arms.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Historically kings would go to battles for this exact reason, kings were the war leaders of the country.

      They’d call out other combatants on the opposite side for a 1 on 1 duel. They had to stop this when the Mongols showed up

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Historically kings would go to battles for this exact reason, kings were the war leaders of the country.
        It was also to prevent some cocky general from deciding he should be King after a campaign because he is in full control of the army

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Political assassinations kind of work like this. No one will believe me, since Jarhead had an extraordinarily similar scene, but my father was in Recon and got dropped in the desert with two other guys to assassinate the Ayatollah. It was called off, but no base bombing like in Jarhead.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >post number

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just so you know it's real, Race War Johnny.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you're not meming and you actually don't know the answer to this question, you're legitimately retarded

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why aren't wars resolved this way?
    Because God wants to have fun.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I was reading that Kingdom manga and there are lots of battles ended because someone slayed the enemy commander, regardless of current strategical advantage. Did it actually work that way?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because the losing side might go back in their word.

      In many cases, yes.
      Think of the Battle of Hastings. William killed Harold and this effectively ended the battle.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In the american revolutionary war, american riflemen deliberately targeted british officers, in order to leave the soldiers without effective command
      This hadn't really been a thing in the days of smoothbore muskets, but america having been a frontier land many men were well sharpshooters with rifled muskets
      British officers are recorded as having removed all items of insignia, medals etc. before battle so as to be less identifiable as officers - imagine how big a deal that would have been for stuffy british officers of the period

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >there are lots of battles ended because someone slayed the enemy commander,
      Reminds me of another Canadian war crime

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razing_of_Friesoythe

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cunaxa

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the military-industryial complex has to expend the trillions of dollars worth of munitions, planes, tanks, etc etc so they can make/sell more

    Gotta keep those bombers flyin'!

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    but with mecha

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fuck yeah, Robot Jox

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The ultimate black pill point of war is to thin out the male population. powerful men send the less powerful to die, so they can more easily have pseudo harems. pic unrelated.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why aren't wars resolved this way?
    Because wars are also about profit. Incredible profits, really.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why not a football match instead?
    And if you thought of NFL football you are a mongoloid.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >And if you thought of NFL football you are a mongoloid.
      NFL is the topmost league of football. AFL and CFL suck ass and ELF sucks their ass

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you think you could win the war normally why would you give up the opportunity in some deal that could go either way? If you believe your war is over a legitimate grievance, your people would be pissed you let it go because of some deal.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even the Trojan War really didn't work that way.

    There's literally parts of the Iliad where the Gods say "Everyone step aside, I want to watch these two 1 v 1 and if anyone steps in they're getting murked"

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >geopolitics should be overhauled to be more like Mortal Kombat
    I guess it can't be any worse than what we're already doing.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't they still have the Trojan war after Brad Pitt did his cool jump-stab?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That was a different war, Paris stole Helena at the victory celebration iirc

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >lose the duel
    >invade with you army anyway because it's war and you don't want to lose
    What now?

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Although you are right it would save a lot of problems that war brings.... this day and age, we need war for population control at this point.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *