> Without guns and bombs I think the conflict would have ended sooner. Well trained armed forces using bow and arrow are extremely effective to the point where

> Without guns and bombs I think the conflict would have ended sooner. Well trained armed forces using bow and arrow are extremely effective to the point where untrained forces have little chance of winning. For a historical example consider what the mongol army did and how long it took. The reason why insurgency and non traditional warfare has become effective is how little training someone needs to use hit and run tactics and a gun. Counterexample: it took Julius Caesar 7 years to conquer Gaul. Then there's the Hundred years War, fought over much the same terrain. Some other modern examples: Iran-Iraq War: lasted 8 years, was a draw; 1991 Gulf War: lasted one month. German invasions of France: 1970 - quick victory; 1914 - bogged down; 1940 - quick victory I suspect the technology used during a war has little effect on its duration.