Hypotheticals are nonsense to reason with, and even more so when located in the past... Everyone in the past is dead...Why not ask: Would you rather be dead than alive???...

It is a question about how to die not whether one is going to or not.
How to die is always present, going to die is always future

plus it was supposed to be for fun....occasionally I hear that can be a positive development
it's just one of those which time period would you have rather lived in type questions

What soldier and why you were going to die would come into it also.
What warrior class would you choose is the same as what battle.

Why did I never hear of these before and why aren't there movies and video games about them?

Being a Samurai warrior would have been cool I think. I mean not only would you get to wear the cool uni, but in their heyday, they were miles ahead of what the rest of the world was doing militarily speaking.

By the end of the feudal period, several hundred thousand firearms existed in Japan and massive armies numbering over 100,000 clashed in battles. By comparison, the largest and most powerful army in Europe, the Spanish, had only several thousand firearms and could only assemble 30,000 troops.

would i be a hybid where i was on the side of the guns,and canons,but i had the skills with a sword ? I like that idea. So while everyone is fighting,i run up with a sword,chopping heads off and stabbing people. I'll come out of no where too,element of surprise

I only found out the other week ,from a Welshman, that khaki is the word for ship with a t, in Gaelic slang. You can imagine when they first saw it saying what a ship colour. Its amazing how uniforms can change even in ones life time. I have worn the battle dress of ww2 and it does not compare at all with modern combat uniforms. When you got wet you stayed wet.

You would probably like these guys called pioneers then. They functioned like the equivalent of military engineers, but the British (as well as almost every other nation in the world at the time) used them in almost every capacity and attached them to almost every regiment to clear obstacles ahead of them, whether that be trees and overgrowth or gates and ramparts. Also, beards weren't optional. The French (in blue) used their pioneers in much more versatile ways, and had companies of pioneers proceed ahead of a main column to break down defenses and literally act as short term shock troops. For a more bad-ass account of French pioneers, look up the storming of La Haye Saint. Interestingly enough, the British army still maintains the custom of a long beard and mustache for the sergeant of pioneers in honor of the distinction of the pioneers.

This isn't really philosophical which is why I placed it here in the General Discussion section. I guess this is something I've wondered about in the past but I've never really asked anyone else their opinion on the matter.

There are only 2 choices
You must choose 1

If you had to be in a battle, would you rather:
(1) Be in one during the age in which armies lined up and shot at each other and used cannons?
Or
(2) Be in one during the age in which armies lined up and had swords, bows and arrows, and catapult ?

I think, given those 2 choices and only those 2 choices, I would probably choose (2) because I feel like my chances of survival would be better

I guess maybe it boils down to the fact that I can't stand not being able to see something coming(I do not enjoy being snuck up on whereas some people aren't necessarily bothered by it) and I think my ability to see things coming would be greater in (2) than (1)