If you had to go to war, would you like the old style of charging at your enemy with a sword in hand, or the modern style of trenches, tanks and machine guns? For me its the former, there is something more noble about defeating an enemy in fair combat than pulling a trigger. And if you defeated your opponent, you know its down to your skill as a fighter.

Are we talking WW1 trench warfare or modern day combat?

I'll take the gun.
There's a reason why we don't use swords in combat now.

Trenches are hardly modern style, the use of trenches has been extremely limited since the beginning of WW2 and pretty much is non-existent today.

Also not sure I understand what you mean about fair combat and skill as a fighter. I don't think war is this glorious thing you seem to think it is. It sure as hell isn't about being fair and noble. War really isn't about just two groups slugging it out with one another till one surrenders, you win wars by destroying enemy resources, civilians and cities, demoralizing them and ruining their economic structure. There are a couple exceptions like the current war in the middle-east, but that's more of a conflict against a non-government entity then a total war.

Swords, shields and pikes look legendary but guns are more effective. Movies glorify old day combat. Having armies charge at opposing armies looks amazing and epic when in reality battlements tried avoiding that as long as possible.

There's absolutely no room for nobility in any combat, not just modern. Back when swords were the primary weaponry it's not like the warriors of their time periods challenged their opponent to a one-on-one sword duel with the winner gaining nothing but the glory of a solid victory. Why do you think they invented long bows and crossbows. People back then wanted to avoid up close and personal combat just as much as we do now.

Why not both? That's why we invented bayonets. Best of both worlds.