Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

J.K. Rowling once said that in her verse a Muggle with a gun will beat a Wizard every time.

The fifty years thing is also a bit misleading. Formations consisting solely of dudes with swords and shields or a wall of (just) long pointy sticks may have died out as a viable military concept quite quickly after the adoption of personal firearms, but the use of cavalry charges, including ones where none of the cavalry had guns, continued in Europe right up into the First World War and in the rest of the world until at least World War Two.

And even in our modern times with our smart missiles, drones and tanks, military firearms still have bayonet lugs, because sometimes what you need more than a firearm is a way to put a few inches of steel directly into that fucker who's right up close.

That’s a bit of a misleading argument.

The reason why cavalry stuck around has little to do with the efficacy of firearms as a personal weapon. Cavalry units adopted firearms very quickly just like other infantry units, but they kept their horses because there were really no better options for mobility. Until automotive technology progressed enough for the widespread deployment of mechanized infantry, this remained the case.

As far as cavalry armed solely with melee weapons persisting into the 1900s, that’s just not correct. Cavalry were expected to fight dismounted as well, so they carried rifles with them when everyone else started doing it.

And I’ll point out that bayonets haven’t seen any significant use as a close combat weapon for quite a while. A lot of militaries don’t even issue them any more, or only use them in training to foster a warrior mentality. The primary role of knives on the battlefield these days is as a utility tool, not a weapon, and if you’re in a situation where you need to stab someone it’s simpler just to stab them than to try and fix a bayonet.

@archonspeaks: With guns and magic, you're correct, though the same is usually true with magic. Though I suppose depending on range and whether or not it requires incantations that might not be the case.

I use my setting for D&D 5e campaigns, in which Wizards can be pretty powerful. "Modern Soldiers" are reskinned Artificers (Artificers are a sort of magitek-themed class that makes magic items. I modify the flavor somewhat so that they're emulating magic with technology. For example, a grenade launcher is essentially a fireball spell). Higher level-wizards can do some pretty insane stauff (IE, pull meteors down from the heavens), but in theory a Modern Soldier of equal level would be some form of super-soldier (ala Master Chief) that's essentially as powerful.

Though one of the stronger factions (a group of Science Heroes) is indeed strong because they drop the fantasy pretense and are the only faction that equips all their forces with guns, including their wizards.

I mean, we could go back and forth on what's misleading for a while here.

While firearms did indeed become the main weapon of choice for armies, the preferred tactic right up until the invention of the integrated cartridge was for lines of infantry to advance at each other in order to engage in hand-to-hand, with firearms used primarily to whittle down the numbers of the opposing line. So more or less the same purpose as the pilae of Roman soldiers centuries before.

Cavalry charges remained viable for that long mainly because their purpose was to disrupt the enemy's line and get them good and disorganised for the close to hand-to-hand. They did not use firearms to any real effect. While their were attempts at using cavalry with firearms, these fell into two camps: Mounted infantry, i.e. regular soldiers on horseback who would ride to a position to deploy and them dismount to actually fight and dragoons i.e. cavalry who used pistols and later carbines to support their charge with shots fired by the rearmost elements of the charge while the point still came in with sabres or lances at the ready.

Until the invention of the rifle in the 18th century, troops were trained for speed, not for accuracy, because aiming any more sophisticated than 'in the general direction of the opposing line' was next to pointless and just reduced the volume of fire.

In any case... In a magic using society, mages would have less to fear from early firearms than from crossbows. At least crossbows are accurate enough that they could be used to specifically target mages. For arquebuses and muskets both the range and the accuracy were so shit that troops using them would only be dangerous when in tight, easy-to-fireball blocks at close, easy-to-fireball range.

I don’t think any of that really has much to do with the point I was making, which is that firearms spelled the end for medieval-style warfare very quickly. The period between guns being brand new and guns being everywhere was quite short, they were rapidly adopted and rapidly found their way into every aspect of warfare simply because of how much more convenient they are than melee weapons.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 10th 2019 at 8:49:58 AM

Not really, although gunpowder did contribute to the end of the medieval-style of warfare through the use of artillery and better manufactured firearms, the idea that the firearm itself brought an end to the use of heavy cavalry is factually wrong.

For one, the power of the arquebus was still low enough that the knights could simply use heavy armour to compensate, much like how it was with arrows and bolts. The medieval period saw the evolution of plate armour to eventually supplant (chain) mail as the main form of protection, with the latter becoming a complement.

Second, the decline of the chivalric type of warfare can be attributed to the ability of states to hire better trained infantry beyond the levies and the retinues. Agincourt and Crecy showcased the limits of the knights and the ability of the infantry to give a fair fight given the chance.

In fact, the Tercios, who are remembered as the first professional modern army, were divided between musketeers, pikemen and swordsmen. The reality was that the firearms were not only inaccurate as a rule prior to widespread rifling, but also slow to reload in comparison of what a trained archer or crossbowmen could do.

Finally, melee weapons have not really disappeared, they are still alive in the form of the bayonet.

If bayonets are still used, it's usually in the form of the bayonet knife. Basically, it's a knife that can also be attached to a rifle or can be used like any other knife.

But nothing beats the plain old shovel. Hey, it helped the Romans build an empire.

Edited by M84 on Sep 11th 2019 at 1:51:06 AM

Also much less likely to get stuck in your opponent.

Yeah, what really caused the end of the knights wasn't really firearms, but better trained infantry drilled in pike formations. Cavalry charges lose a lot of their effectiveness on an enemy that stays in formation because horses are still animals and will refuse to run into a wall, even more so if said wall also happens to be pointy. As the role of heavy cavalry diminished, so did the need for a warrior caste.

After pike formations were introduced, the role of cavalry changed to mopping up the enemy after they were broken up.

By the way. I feel the talk about Colonialism should go here

On that note, is the term colonization completely tainted? Like, if a civilization occupied a landmass/planet/different plane/whatever that has no pre-existing (sentient) life, does calling the place a colony still have negative undertones?

I think No. We use terms like Space Colony, for example

Yeah, I don't think it's intrinsically tainted. As long as there aren't any intelligent natives I highly doubt anyone would draw parallels with historical colonialism.

I think the terms colonization and colonialism might be tainted. The latter for obvious reasons. "Colony" might not be.

Eh, I could see colonialism being tainted. But colonization? I don't think so.

I mean, I've heard people talk about colonizing Mars and no one thinks they're neo-imperialist bigots.

Edit:

Actually, reading about it. Wikipedia defines colonialism as:

So yeah, it's tainted because unlike colonization it intrinsically involves exploiting people. If it's just a habitable planet without any sapient life then it can't be colonialism.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 12th 2019 at 1:55:30 AM

@Fourthspartan 56 I actually have heard people call supporters of space colonization imperialists. Though, to be fair, they're fringe and I personally think they're very stupid.

Honestly, I feel silly for assuming that no one would hold such a stupid position. I have no idea what I was thinking.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 12th 2019 at 2:11:06 AM

One of the first policy shifts I had my 20 Minutes into the Future version of Earth do after they got access to a Portal Network and discovered sentient life (other than the nasties that invaded Earth) was to repeal the Outer Space Treaty. Partially to put nukes into space, but mostly to not claim hundreds of already occupied (by well armed empires) worlds as their own.

But I agree, truly empty areas are free game. And calling the governmental department behind it something like "Colonial Affairs" shouldn't be too problematic.

Expect issues once abuses to the colonial settlers happens tho. And those definitely would.be compared.to Colonialism in the old way.

About that ASOIAF stuff : I don't think there's actually a quote from GRRM about the ingredients for gunpowder not existing. All those talking about it don't remember where they saw it.

And the Meereenese, while being evil orient-themed baddies, they're not the invaders in Daenerys storyline. Daenerys is. They were quietly doing their awful trade before she decided to intervene, destroy a government, threaten Yunkaï and occupy Meereen. With terrible results when Reality Ensues and the whole region goes down in civil war.

Thank the Throne for that, he'd have to re-write physics to make it work.

Re: space colonies: a premise where a former colonial empire is transitioning into becoming The Federation might be interesting. The "historical allegory" approach typically has involved outright independence, because representation and/or home rule were rejected by the metropole. A situation where fiction zigs where history zags, with the capital giving home rule to its colonies as federated member states, and the debate over reparations, democracy, representation, and economics would be a great backdrop for a Space Opera. In fact, that's where the Star Wars sequels should have gone, if the writers had a shred of courage or creativity, but alas...

Just so long as we don't get a Zeon situation...

Edited by M84 on Sep 13th 2019 at 9:39:31 PM

The Earth Federation are saints.

No Joking Mode or Sarcasm Mode. The regular answer to the shit Zeon pulled off in the first months of the One Year War would be to obliterate Side 3 in plans that would made Operation Downfall and the hipothetic Mongenthau Plan look tame.

Instead, Side , even in Unicorn which is supossed to criticize the Federation....it's a Puppet state with plans to re integrate in the future.

That's a shockingly merciful treatment.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Sep 13th 2019 at 1:00:43 PM