[002]
D2R
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"though this wasn\\\'t enough to change the course of their century-long losing war against the Mongols\\\"
This is _very_ historically inaccurate. There had been no Mongols before 1206, when this ethnonym was chosen by Genghis Khan for his people. Until 1235 the Mongols were fighting against the Jurchens of the Jin empire (which completely separated the Mongol territories from China, by the way), with Song China\\\'s benevolent neutrality. China was conquered in 1260s - early 1270s. There was no such a thing as a \\\"century-long Mongolo-Chinese war\\\".
\\\"It\\\'s frequently attributed to the assumption that guns ended the era of knights; while it might be that creators of works of fantasy think this, the assumption itself isn\\\'t true.\\\"
This assumption _is_ principally correct, the problem lies in the way some people (mis)understand it. The development of firearms _eventually_ put an end to the evolution of heavily armored cavalry, because eventually armor came to be unable to withstand bullet hits – that is it, simply put. It does not say that the invention of firearms _instantaneously_ eradicated knights from the battlefield – that\\\'s just how some people misunderstand it.
“Guns and knights existed side-by-side for over 300 years”
Indeed, but the use and usefulness of knightly/armored cavalry was gradually declining all along this period - until it eventually came to be totally useless. And _that_ was the way firearms, combined with other factors, ended the era of knights, in 300 years. If by “knights” we mean “heavily armored cavalrymen”. Because by the end of this period they (lancers, reiters, etc.) were not technically knights (feudal holders of fiefs fighting for their lieges) but mercenaries or recruits using more or less the same weapons, armor and tactics as knights. The use of real knights as battlefield combatants ceased long before that and for completely other reasons (social and economical in nature).
“After the advent of guns, blacksmiths would deliberately shoot at their armour — and customers would look for the dent, because it indicated that the armour would stop bullets. That\\\'s the origin of the term \\\'bullet proof\\\'”
Yes - but _pistol_ bullets. No armor offered significant protection against muskets, which were the main “eradicators” of heavily armored cavalry. And yes, it took several hundred years for the musket to develop from more primitive forms of firearms. Nothing in history happens instantly. And - the dents were often false, imitated with a hammer.
“Early guns were not superior to traditional projectile weapons in every respect”
They were superior in one – and most important – respect, destructive power vs. living targets. A soft bullet is principally much more destructive than an arrow or a bolt, simply because it can deform and thus efficiently transfer its kinetic energy to the target, causing massive concussive effect in the soft tissues near the wound channel. Bullet wounds were also much more lethal with relatively primitive medicine (essentially until mid-XIX or even XX century). And firearms were at least as good in every other respect in relation to comparable projectile weapons (e.g. we do not compare bows and muskets, as they are principally different and served different purposes on the battlefield; we compare early firearms to heavy crossbows and springalds which had the same tactical role).
“He was ignored, of course; he had forgotten about the training issue“
The training issue is in fact one of the more recent myths, most likely created by the modern “reconstructor” bowmen, in an attempt to distance themselves away from the “plebian” firearm shooters. “Life-long training” is not necessarily required to become an efficient bowman. In fact, we know that e.g. Romans did train their bowmen from zero level recruits. Now you may say that the Romans were not famous for their bowmen, and you\\\'d be right. But at least they were good enough to be used efficiently on the battlefield – just as “point-and-trigger” musketeers or “point-and-thrust” pikemen were.
It did not take any less time or effort to become a _great_ crossbowman or musketeer than a great bowman, however.
In some cultures with pretty high standards of archery (Englishmen, Turkic nomads, etc.) a bowmen did have train from early childhood to be considered a professional, but that was not the general rule, nor the only way possible. It was technically possible to train a large amount of sufficiently efficient archers in a reasonable amount of time.
“The real change in warfare was the Swiss introduction of pikes in the 15th and 16th centuries”
Nope. It did change the European battlefield (essentially returned it back to the state it had had before the collapse of the Roman military might), but didn\\\'t revolutionize it. In fact, the Byzantines had excellent armored infantry with spears and pikes long before XV century, cavalry was only supplementary in their armies, just as in the Roman Legions. It didn\\\'t save them from the Crusader knights in 1204, though. Organized infantry with pikes was not an answer to all questions, just a part of the equation. Firearms, however, eventually came to be that answer – hence the Great Firearm Revolution as it is called for a reason.
The article also completely misses the indirect results of the advent of firearms – which also significantly contributed to the fall of feudalism and the modernization of Western Europe as a whole. Such as – cities and royal governments getting more power relative to the feudals, gunpowder artillery making older castles useless, etc., as explored by Karl Marx in “Wage Labor and Capital”. I realize that is not a popular reading in the West, but anyway there is no reason to reject something just because it is “politically incorrect”.
“So, in short, knightly charges were dead without needing firearms to kill them“
However, cavalry in heavy plate armor was used well into XVII century. It was still efficient in the time of the English Civil War (1640s).
“Although plate armour was worn up till the middle of the 17th century, improvements that led to increased muzzle velocity and higher bullet calibre rendered it pointless to have without making it thicker and heavier, which was just not practical. “
So, finally, the guns DID end the era of heavily armored cavalry (and yes, infantry too), didn\\\'t they ?
“That\\\'s why you see pictures of 17th century troops in metal breastplates and helmets, whilst by the 18th they\\\'d abandoned them”
That was more of an economical issue. Armies became larger and completely equipped by the states, which didn\\\'t want to spend the extra money on armor because men were “cheap” back then (the early Industrial Age was marked by a rapid growth of population in the Western Europe which seemed to be unending and even dangerous for the civilization – hence Maltus et al). Armor was still practical until mid-XIX century and the widespread of rapid-fire rifled firearms because most of the battlefield wounds were still inflicted by bayonets and swords, not bullets – in fact the reintroduction of the cuirass as a standard issue infantry armor could have saved a lot of lives. And a somewhat-more-expensive steel cuirass could stop a musket bullet at ~100 yards, as XVIII-XIX century muskets were not as powerful as the earlier ones, sacrificing power for mobility. The bean counters didn\\\'t let it happen, of course; “save a gold piece per soldier in an army of 1 000 000 – save a million gold pieces”.
This is _very_ historically inaccurate. There had been no Mongols before 1206, when this ethnonym was chosen by Genghis Khan for his people. Until 1235 the Mongols were fighting against the Jurchens of the Jin empire (which completely separated the Mongol territories from China, by the way), with Song China\\\'s benevolent neutrality. China was conquered in 1260s - early 1270s. There was no such a thing as a \\\"century-long Mongolo-Chinese war\\\".
\\\"It\\\'s frequently attributed to the assumption that guns ended the era of knights; while it might be that creators of works of fantasy think this, the assumption itself isn\\\'t true.\\\"
This assumption _is_ principally correct, the problem lies in the way some people (mis)understand it. The development of firearms _eventually_ put an end to the evolution of heavily armored cavalry, because eventually armor came to be unable to withstand bullet hits – that is it, simply put. It does not say that the invention of firearms _instantaneously_ eradicated knights from the battlefield – that\\\'s just how some people misunderstand it.
“Guns and knights existed side-by-side for over 300 years”
Indeed, but the use and usefulness of knightly/armored cavalry was gradually declining all along this period - until it eventually came to be totally useless. And _that_ was the way firearms, combined with other factors, ended the era of knights, in 300 years. If by “knights” we mean “heavily armored cavalrymen”. Because by the end of this period they (lancers, reiters, etc.) were not technically knights (feudal holders of fiefs fighting for their lieges) but mercenaries or recruits using more or less the same weapons, armor and tactics as knights. The use of real knights as battlefield combatants ceased long before that and for completely other reasons (social and economical in nature).
“After the advent of guns, blacksmiths would deliberately shoot at their armour — and customers would look for the dent, because it indicated that the armour would stop bullets. That\\\'s the origin of the term \\\'bullet proof\\\'”
Yes - but _pistol_ bullets. No armor offered significant protection against muskets, which were the main “eradicators” of heavily armored cavalry. And yes, it took several hundred years for the musket to develop from more primitive forms of firearms. Nothing in history happens instantly. And - the dents were often false, imitated with a hammer.
“Early guns were not superior to traditional projectile weapons in every respect”
They were superior in one – and most important – respect, destructive power vs. living targets. A soft bullet is principally much more destructive than an arrow or a bolt, simply because it can deform and thus efficiently transfer its kinetic energy to the target, causing massive concussive effect in the soft tissues near the wound channel. Bullet wounds were also much more lethal with relatively primitive medicine (essentially until mid-XIX or even XX century). And firearms were at least as good in every other respect in relation to comparable projectile weapons (e.g. we do not compare bows and muskets, as they are principally different and served different purposes on the battlefield; we compare early firearms to heavy crossbows and springalds which had the same tactical role).
“He was ignored, of course; he had forgotten about the training issue“
The training issue is in fact one of the more recent myths, most likely created by the modern “reconstructor” bowmen, in an attempt to distance themselves away from the “plebian” firearm shooters. “Life-long training” is not necessarily required to become an efficient bowman. In fact, we know that e.g. Romans did train their bowmen from zero level recruits. Now you may say that the Romans were not famous for their bowmen, and you\\\'d be right. But at least they were good enough to be used efficiently on the battlefield – just as “point-and-trigger” musketeers or “point-and-thrust” pikemen were.
It did not take any less time or effort to become a _great_ crossbowman or musketeer than a great bowman, however.
In some cultures with pretty high standards of archery (Englishmen, Turkic nomads, etc.) a bowmen did have train from early childhood to be considered a professional, but that was not the general rule, nor the only way possible. It was technically possible to train a large amount of sufficiently efficient archers in a reasonable amount of time.
“The real change in warfare was the Swiss introduction of pikes in the 15th and 16th centuries”
Nope. It did change the European battlefield (essentially returned it back to the state it had had before the collapse of the Roman military might), but didn\\\'t revolutionize it. In fact, the Byzantines had excellent armored infantry with spears and pikes long before XV century, cavalry was only supplementary in their armies, just as in the Roman Legions. It didn\\\'t save them from the Crusader knights in 1204, though. Organized infantry with pikes was not an answer to all questions, just a part of the equation. Firearms, however, eventually came to be that answer – hence the Great Firearm Revolution as it is called for a reason.
The article also completely misses the indirect results of the advent of firearms – which also significantly contributed to the fall of feudalism and the modernization of Western Europe as a whole. Such as – cities and royal governments getting more power relative to the feudals, gunpowder artillery making older castles useless, etc., as explored by Karl Marx in “Wage Labor and Capital”. I realize that is not a popular reading in the West, but anyway there is no reason to reject something just because it is “politically incorrect”.
“So, in short, knightly charges were dead without needing firearms to kill them“
However, cavalry in heavy plate armor was used well into XVII century. It was still efficient in the time of the English Civil War (1640s).
“Although plate armour was worn up till the middle of the 17th century, improvements that led to increased muzzle velocity and higher bullet calibre rendered it pointless to have without making it thicker and heavier, which was just not practical. “
So, finally, the guns DID end the era of heavily armored cavalry (and yes, infantry too), didn\\\'t they ?
“That\\\'s why you see pictures of 17th century troops in metal breastplates and helmets, whilst by the 18th they\\\'d abandoned them”
That was more of an economical issue. Armies became larger and completely equipped by the states, which didn\\\'t want to spend the extra money on armor because men were “cheap” back then (the early Industrial Age was marked by a rapid growth of population in the Western Europe which seemed to be unending and even dangerous for the civilization – hence Maltus et al). Armor was still practical until mid-XIX century and the widespread of rapid-fire rifled firearms because most of the battlefield wounds were still inflicted by bayonets and swords, not bullets – in fact the reintroduction of the cuirass as a standard issue infantry armor could have saved a lot of lives. And a somewhat-more-expensive steel cuirass could stop a musket bullet at ~100 yards, as XVIII-XIX century muskets were not as powerful as the earlier ones, sacrificing power for mobility. The bean counters didn\\\'t let it happen, of course; “save a gold piece per soldier in an army of 1 000 000 – save a million gold pieces”.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"though this wasn\\\'t enough to change the course of their century-long losing war against the Mongols\\\"
This is _very_ historically inaccurate. There had been no Mongols before 1206, when this ethnonym was chosen by Genghis Khan for his people. Until 1235 the Mongols were fighting against the Jurchens of the Jin empire (which completely separated the Mongol territories from China, by the way), with Song China\\\'s benevolent neutrality. There was no such a thing as a \\\"century-long Mongolo-Chinese war\\\".
\\\"It\\\'s frequently attributed to the assumption that guns ended the era of knights; while it might be that creators of works of fantasy think this, the assumption itself isn\\\'t true.\\\"
This assumption _is_ principally correct, the problem lies in the way some people (mis)understand it. The development of firearms _eventually_ put an end to the evolution of heavily armored cavalry, because eventually armor came to be unable to withstand bullet hits – that is it, simply put. It does not say that the invention of firearms _instantaneously_ eradicated knights from the battlefield – that\\\'s just how some people misunderstand it.
“Guns and knights existed side-by-side for over 300 years”
Indeed, but the use and usefulness of knightly/armored cavalry was gradually declining all along this period - until it eventually came to be totally useless. And _that_ was the way firearms, combined with other factors, ended the era of knights, in 300 years. If by “knights” we mean “heavily armored cavalrymen”. Because by the end of this period they (lancers, reiters, etc.) were not technically knights (feudal holders of fiefs fighting for their lieges) but mercenaries or recruits using more or less the same weapons, armor and tactics as knights. The use of real knights as battlefield combatants ceased long before that and for completely other reasons (social and economical in nature).
“After the advent of guns, blacksmiths would deliberately shoot at their armour — and customers would look for the dent, because it indicated that the armour would stop bullets. That\\\'s the origin of the term \\\'bullet proof\\\'”
Yes - but _pistol_ bullets. No armor offered significant protection against muskets, which were the main “eradicators” of heavily armored cavalry. And yes, it took several hundred years for the musket to develop from more primitive forms of firearms. Nothing in history happens instantly. And - the dents were often false, imitated with a hammer.
“Early guns were not superior to traditional projectile weapons in every respect”
They were superior in one – and most important – respect, destructive power vs. living targets. A soft bullet is principally much more destructive than an arrow or a bolt, simply because it can deform and thus efficiently transfer its kinetic energy to the target, causing massive concussive effect in the soft tissues near the wound channel. Bullet wounds were also much more lethal with relatively primitive medicine (essentially until mid-XIX or even XX century). And firearms were at least as good in every other respect in relation to comparable projectile weapons (e.g. we do not compare bows and muskets, as they are principally different and served different purposes on the battlefield; we compare early firearms to heavy crossbows and springalds which had the same tactical role).
“He was ignored, of course; he had forgotten about the training issue“
The training issue is in fact one of the more recent myths, most likely created by the modern “reconstructor” bowmen, in an attempt to distance themselves away from the “plebian” firearm shooters. “Life-long training” is not necessarily required to become an efficient bowman. In fact, we know that e.g. Romans did train their bowmen from zero level recruits. Now you may say that the Romans were not famous for their bowmen, and you\\\'d be right. But at least they were good enough to be used efficiently on the battlefield – just as “point-and-trigger” musketeers or “point-and-thrust” pikemen were.
It did not take any less time or effort to become a _great_ crossbowman or musketeer than a great bowman, however.
In some cultures with pretty high standards of archery (Englishmen, Turkic nomads, etc.) a bowmen did have train from early childhood to be considered a professional, but that was not the general rule, nor the only way possible. It was technically possible to train a large amount of sufficiently efficient archers in a reasonable amount of time.
“The real change in warfare was the Swiss introduction of pikes in the 15th and 16th centuries”
Nope. It did change the European battlefield (essentially returned it back to the state it had had before the collapse of the Roman military might), but didn\\\'t revolutionize it. In fact, the Byzantines had excellent armored infantry with spears and pikes long before XV century, cavalry was only supplementary in their armies, just as in the Roman Legions. It didn\\\'t save them from the Crusader knights in 1204, though. Organized infantry with pikes was not an answer to all questions, just a part of the equation. Firearms, however, eventually came to be that answer – hence the Great Firearm Revolution as it is called for a reason.
The article also completely misses the indirect results of the advent of firearms – which also significantly contributed to the fall of feudalism and the modernization of Western Europe as a whole. Such as – cities and royal governments getting more power relative to the feudals, gunpowder artillery making older castles useless, etc., as explored by Karl Marx in “Wage Labor and Capital”. I realize that is not a popular reading in the West, but anyway there is no reason to reject something just because it is “politically incorrect”.
“So, in short, knightly charges were dead without needing firearms to kill them“
However, cavalry in heavy plate armor was used well into XVII century. It was still efficient in the time of the English Civil War (1640s).
“Although plate armour was worn up till the middle of the 17th century, improvements that led to increased muzzle velocity and higher bullet calibre rendered it pointless to have without making it thicker and heavier, which was just not practical. “
So, finally, the guns DID end the era of heavily armored cavalry (and yes, infantry too), didn\\\'t they ?
“That\\\'s why you see pictures of 17th century troops in metal breastplates and helmets, whilst by the 18th they\\\'d abandoned them”
That was more of an economical issue. Armies became larger and completely equipped by the states, which didn\\\'t want to spend the extra money on armor because men were “cheap” back then (the early Industrial Age was marked by a rapid growth of population in the Western Europe which seemed to be unending and even dangerous for the civilization – hence Maltus et al). Armor was still practical until mid-XIX century and the widespread of rapid-fire rifled firearms because most of the battlefield wounds were still inflicted by bayonets and swords, not bullets – in fact the reintroduction of the cuirass as a standard issue infantry armor could have saved a lot of lives. And a somewhat-more-expensive steel cuirass could stop a musket bullet at ~100 yards, as XVIII-XIX century muskets were not as powerful as the earlier ones, sacrificing power for mobility. The bean counters didn\\\'t let it happen, of course; “save a gold piece per soldier in an army of 1 000 000 – save a million gold pieces”.
This is _very_ historically inaccurate. There had been no Mongols before 1206, when this ethnonym was chosen by Genghis Khan for his people. Until 1235 the Mongols were fighting against the Jurchens of the Jin empire (which completely separated the Mongol territories from China, by the way), with Song China\\\'s benevolent neutrality. There was no such a thing as a \\\"century-long Mongolo-Chinese war\\\".
\\\"It\\\'s frequently attributed to the assumption that guns ended the era of knights; while it might be that creators of works of fantasy think this, the assumption itself isn\\\'t true.\\\"
This assumption _is_ principally correct, the problem lies in the way some people (mis)understand it. The development of firearms _eventually_ put an end to the evolution of heavily armored cavalry, because eventually armor came to be unable to withstand bullet hits – that is it, simply put. It does not say that the invention of firearms _instantaneously_ eradicated knights from the battlefield – that\\\'s just how some people misunderstand it.
“Guns and knights existed side-by-side for over 300 years”
Indeed, but the use and usefulness of knightly/armored cavalry was gradually declining all along this period - until it eventually came to be totally useless. And _that_ was the way firearms, combined with other factors, ended the era of knights, in 300 years. If by “knights” we mean “heavily armored cavalrymen”. Because by the end of this period they (lancers, reiters, etc.) were not technically knights (feudal holders of fiefs fighting for their lieges) but mercenaries or recruits using more or less the same weapons, armor and tactics as knights. The use of real knights as battlefield combatants ceased long before that and for completely other reasons (social and economical in nature).
“After the advent of guns, blacksmiths would deliberately shoot at their armour — and customers would look for the dent, because it indicated that the armour would stop bullets. That\\\'s the origin of the term \\\'bullet proof\\\'”
Yes - but _pistol_ bullets. No armor offered significant protection against muskets, which were the main “eradicators” of heavily armored cavalry. And yes, it took several hundred years for the musket to develop from more primitive forms of firearms. Nothing in history happens instantly. And - the dents were often false, imitated with a hammer.
“Early guns were not superior to traditional projectile weapons in every respect”
They were superior in one – and most important – respect, destructive power vs. living targets. A soft bullet is principally much more destructive than an arrow or a bolt, simply because it can deform and thus efficiently transfer its kinetic energy to the target, causing massive concussive effect in the soft tissues near the wound channel. Bullet wounds were also much more lethal with relatively primitive medicine (essentially until mid-XIX or even XX century). And firearms were at least as good in every other respect in relation to comparable projectile weapons (e.g. we do not compare bows and muskets, as they are principally different and served different purposes on the battlefield; we compare early firearms to heavy crossbows and springalds which had the same tactical role).
“He was ignored, of course; he had forgotten about the training issue“
The training issue is in fact one of the more recent myths, most likely created by the modern “reconstructor” bowmen, in an attempt to distance themselves away from the “plebian” firearm shooters. “Life-long training” is not necessarily required to become an efficient bowman. In fact, we know that e.g. Romans did train their bowmen from zero level recruits. Now you may say that the Romans were not famous for their bowmen, and you\\\'d be right. But at least they were good enough to be used efficiently on the battlefield – just as “point-and-trigger” musketeers or “point-and-thrust” pikemen were.
It did not take any less time or effort to become a _great_ crossbowman or musketeer than a great bowman, however.
In some cultures with pretty high standards of archery (Englishmen, Turkic nomads, etc.) a bowmen did have train from early childhood to be considered a professional, but that was not the general rule, nor the only way possible. It was technically possible to train a large amount of sufficiently efficient archers in a reasonable amount of time.
“The real change in warfare was the Swiss introduction of pikes in the 15th and 16th centuries”
Nope. It did change the European battlefield (essentially returned it back to the state it had had before the collapse of the Roman military might), but didn\\\'t revolutionize it. In fact, the Byzantines had excellent armored infantry with spears and pikes long before XV century, cavalry was only supplementary in their armies, just as in the Roman Legions. It didn\\\'t save them from the Crusader knights in 1204, though. Organized infantry with pikes was not an answer to all questions, just a part of the equation. Firearms, however, eventually came to be that answer – hence the Great Firearm Revolution as it is called for a reason.
The article also completely misses the indirect results of the advent of firearms – which also significantly contributed to the fall of feudalism and the modernization of Western Europe as a whole. Such as – cities and royal governments getting more power relative to the feudals, gunpowder artillery making older castles useless, etc., as explored by Karl Marx in “Wage Labor and Capital”. I realize that is not a popular reading in the West, but anyway there is no reason to reject something just because it is “politically incorrect”.
“So, in short, knightly charges were dead without needing firearms to kill them“
However, cavalry in heavy plate armor was used well into XVII century. It was still efficient in the time of the English Civil War (1640s).
“Although plate armour was worn up till the middle of the 17th century, improvements that led to increased muzzle velocity and higher bullet calibre rendered it pointless to have without making it thicker and heavier, which was just not practical. “
So, finally, the guns DID end the era of heavily armored cavalry (and yes, infantry too), didn\\\'t they ?
“That\\\'s why you see pictures of 17th century troops in metal breastplates and helmets, whilst by the 18th they\\\'d abandoned them”
That was more of an economical issue. Armies became larger and completely equipped by the states, which didn\\\'t want to spend the extra money on armor because men were “cheap” back then (the early Industrial Age was marked by a rapid growth of population in the Western Europe which seemed to be unending and even dangerous for the civilization – hence Maltus et al). Armor was still practical until mid-XIX century and the widespread of rapid-fire rifled firearms because most of the battlefield wounds were still inflicted by bayonets and swords, not bullets – in fact the reintroduction of the cuirass as a standard issue infantry armor could have saved a lot of lives. And a somewhat-more-expensive steel cuirass could stop a musket bullet at ~100 yards, as XVIII-XIX century muskets were not as powerful as the earlier ones, sacrificing power for mobility. The bean counters didn\\\'t let it happen, of course; “save a gold piece per soldier in an army of 1 000 000 – save a million gold pieces”.
