i was wondering about that, i mean technically it could be considered the last war because it was before the modern era (1900) and yes,i know about world war and etc but what i mean is that the mexican-american war was the last one that didn’t have a lot of planning into it, similar to wars in the older days,like there was no system control back then or like radio so technically, while not true, could it be considered “the last war of humanity”?
I’m not even sure what you’re asking. Where did you hear it called that?
i don’t know i just thought it made sense because it was the last war between two countries that was like in the older days
Did you hear this term somewhere or did you come up with it yourself?
Because if you came up with the term, I think it’s on you to explain to us what it means.
i made it up myself because after reading about it i kind of realized that term could maybe make sense!!!
So you’ve made up a term and asked us what it means?
so technically, while not true, could it be considered “the last war of humanity”?
(???)
But it said no stupid questions!
This one isn’t stupid, it’s incoherent. If you’re going to make up terms, it helps to define them for the rest of us. Otherwise any answer you get will be people scratching their heads and giving a guess, but who knows if it’s actually answering the question or not.
That’s more of a guideline and a philosophy than an objective fact.
How high are you right now?
I don’t know about him, but I’m pretty sure I’m high enough to this whole thread being invented in my head because that’s the only explanation that would make it sense hahahau
i don’t smoke, i’m sorry
WTF!?
why is the mexican-american war considered “the last war of humanity”??
why do you consider the mexican-american war “the last war of humanity”??
because it was the last one to be similar to the ones from the older days and that it didn’t use any tech!! between two countries
It might seem like there was an “old days” in war compared to modern times but technology in war has always been continuously improving and has often been the decisive factor.
In the America-Mexico war the Americans had a distinct technological advantage being able to use the newer and more accurate 1841 Springfield rifle. They also had superior artillery technology.
If you mean the “old days” as in mass troop movement on the field and hand to hand fighting and no computers then there was plenty of that all over Europe and elsewhere later in the 1800s all the way up to WWI.
See the Crimea War 1853-1856 and the Franco-Prussian war 1870-1871 for some notable examples. (Both with rifles, troops marching on the battle field, cannons, horses etc)
The last war that didn’t use any tech was fought entirely with bare hands.
Okay, so there are some stupid questions.
I don’t have a complete answer, but the mechanization of warfare should have a lot to do with it. Things like the semi-automatic pistol – they would have called it an “automatic” pistol during that era – the modern hand grenade, the airplane for reconnaissance (although lighter-than-air balloons might have been used? IDK), and other weapons wouldn’t have really appeared for the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).
Or did you mean the Spanish-American War (1898)? I think the same logic still stands, especially since train networks would have been more fully developed by the turn of the century.
It’s not.
It’s just a name. I mean world War 1 is called “the war to end all wars” and then 10 years later we have another war, one simply called “the big one.”
Are you talking about: “from the pov of the US”?
Because otherwise: no, obviously absolutely not.
By humanity, do you mean with hand-to- hand combat? I’m not sure when that ended, but i would expect it to be around that time.
