9 ms·
The Hellburner Was the Renaissance Equivalent of a Tactical Nuclear Weapon
- Jun8 11y agoAnother early advanced weapons technology is Greek Fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire), the exact composition of which is still being debated. Water intensified the flames when it was used in naval battles.
- agumonkey 11y agoThe management and level of secrecy around the technology is impressively "modern". Or maybe we're not that modern.
- danharaj 11y agoA core impulse of modernity is to separate itself from everything that came before.
- agumonkey 11y agoNicely put.
- prodmerc 11y agoEh, anything related directly to humans has been done before. Computers, internal combustion, electricity and medicine are the only major advances we've got over those living 1000 years ago...
- crpatino 11y agoI suppose if I go with the spirit of your statement, it is possible to argue that both computers and medicine were done in some form or another for the last 5 thousand years (think abacus, folk herbalism, etc). It is just that we have figured out how to leverage greater resources (including information) to do those in a much more effective way. On the other hand, the combination of embodied knowledge and chemical energy to create machines, i.e. the internal combustion engine, is a truly novel achievement of our civilization.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y agoThat's a rather big "only".
- prodmerc 11y agoI mean, we could live fine without them. I forgot all the advances in agriculture, which is arguably more important...
- Blackthorn 11y agoModern agriculture depends on literally all of those things you listed (medicine if you're being liberal with the definition).
- eru 11y agoThey invented/adopted a bunch of agricultural things in the agricultural revolution. That was between the 1000 years ago mentioned and the invention of the internal combustion engine, electricity etc. Like a better plow, using legumes to replenish nutrients, etc.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- InclinedPlane 11y agoAnd science, et al. These aren't exactly small things, these are the things of eon defining boundaries. Human beings may be fundamentally made of the same things, our physical and emotional machinery may be largely unchanged. But how we live is hugely different.
- eru 11y ago> Computers, internal combustion, electricity and medicine are the only major advances we've got over those living 1000 years ago... What about external combustion engines? Also, read about agricultural and industrial revolution.
- swimfar 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile Although it seems that it may never have been used for any practical purpose, it is often considered to be the first steam engine and was documented in the 1st century AD.
- eru 11y agoYes, they had some nifty toys. Modern steam engines took off because they managed to make accurate pistons and cylinders. (And a myriad other factors.)
- arethuza 11y agoVitrified forts are another puzzling one - ancient fortresses where the stones in the walls have been subjected to enough heat to make them melt together - whether this was done on purpose or by accident or by enemy action is unknown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrified_fort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrified_fort NB As a kid the impressive vitrified fort on the Tap o' Noth was by basis for imagining what Tolkien's Weathertop looked like.
- slg 11y agoAlthough that misses the main facet of the nuclear weapon analogy. The Hellburner was a hugely destructive weapon that was only used once and wasn't particularly strategically effective. However the fear of that weapon was enough to intimidate and alter the opposing sides strategy in order to avoid it being used against them. Greek Fire was a weapon that was both used more frequently and used to greater effect.
- dmix 11y agoYou can see a replica Greek Fire flame thrower in action here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pSr8fQa9mA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pSr8fQa9mA
- draw_down 11y agoWhat does "tactical" mean in the phrase "tactical nuke"?
- 3princip 11y agoI believe it describes shorter range nukes used on battlefields, for example against opposing ground forces. The opposite would be strategic nukes. These are long range, high-yield weapons used to knock-out cities and bring about nuclear apocalypse type scenarios.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoStrategic nukes take out cities, tactical nukes take out tank formations, fleets, bunkers, etc.
- arethuza 11y agoAlthough worth noting that the bombs used at Nagasaki and Hiroshima were in the range of later "tactical" weapons.
- smacktoward 11y agoThat's right, the primary distinction is to the types of targets each is intended for, though generally speaking tactical nukes are lower-yield than strategic ones. (Because if you're aiming a nuke at enemy forces on a battlefield, the odds are pretty good that there are friendly forces a short distance away on the same field that you'd rather not kill at the same time.)
- draw_down 11y agoSo, "small" then :)
- Sharlin 11y ago"Small" does not signify scope and purpose the way "tactical" does in this context.
- kaffeemitsahne 11y agoTiny correction: "fortuyn" instead of "fortyn" was the name of one of the ships.
- ars 11y agoIt's interesting that this weapon was like a Nuclear Weapon in other ways: Too powerful to actually be used, but the knowledge of its existence acts as a deterrent to war.
- prodmerc 11y agoI'd say it was too expensive to be used, otherwise they'd be used more often. Also one of them did not explode as intended due to the primitive detonation mechanism, so there was some technical difficulties involved (at a time when they barely started using matchlocks, not even the more advanced and successful flintlocks). It was basically the equivalent of a boat filled with TNT as I understand, not that powerful. Could've been very useful at wiping out ports, cities and fleets, at the time, I doubt they had any qualms about it :-). Also, not that much of a war deterrent, as history can attest, lol...
- curiousjorge 11y agoThe turtle ship is another interesting tactical weapon that comes from these era but in other parts of the world. It would ram deep inside enemy formations and fire cannons on all sides which resulted in some astounding victories given Chosun Navy had only a dozen ships vs. thousands of japanese ships. You couldn't land on the ship because it had spikes and would spew smoke for evasion.
- prodmerc 11y agoIt's really surprising that turtle ships and detonating fire ships weren't more commonly used. Maybe most thought it was just a myth, stories told by travelers, or maybe it was ungentlemanly? The Civil War and even WW1 saw a lot of losses because of this inability to adapt, by WW2 (and forward) everybody used the latest advances they could get their hands on...
- curiousjorge 11y agointeresting point that we rarely see tactical weapons of mass destruction being frequently such as nuclear weapon. It's interesting that Japan lost both wars to sudden technological advancements from opposing side and they aren't ever used again. The turtle ships weren't alone but it was a gifted korean naval commander who ironically never commanded a navy before and figured shit out as the war was unfolding. The Korean general would even be hailed as a mythical figure and admired by WW2 Japanese naval generals.
- vonmoltke 11y agoThe turtle ship wasn't sudden (the Koreans built the first examples over a century earlier) and didn't alter the war. Toyotomi Hideyoshi had the entire peninsula under his control until the Ming Emperor intervened.
- yongjik 11y agoFor some definition of "control." Admiral Yi fought twenty-something battles (seems like the exact number is hard to say because it's difficult to define what constitutes a "battle"), and never lost a single one. (That's not to say the Korean navy didn't suffer devastating losses... but that was when Yi was in prison thanks to the idiot king who bought the disinformation supplied by Japanese spies.) Anyway, that raises a philosophical question: if your troops and their supplies need to be delivered across the water, and if your enemy is controlling that water, how much are you controlling the land behind?
- lifeisstillgood 11y agoAnd that is why HN is worth coming back to time and again. A perfect nugget of history in amoungst the mud and dirt of day to day tech. Thank you - that's brilliant. And explains why such a few fire ships had such an effect - always wondered what the problem was.
- unimpressive 11y agoAlso relevant is the Battle of the Crater during the civil war, in which Union forces dug a giant hole underneath the Confederates defenses and packed it with gunpowder. The resulting explosion was so impressive that none of the soldiers were able to capitalize on the sudden opportunity. General Burnside had trained special black troops to head this assault because of just how complicated this mission was compared to anything else in contemporary existence. They were pulled at the last minute by General Meade for a combination of PR reasons (can't have black people winning the war), personal glory reasons, and skepticism. The entire thing is a very sad story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater
- enjo 11y agoMy understanding wasn't that the men were stunned by the impressive explosion, but rather that Ledlie had so badly botched the whole thing that they literally had no idea what to expect or where to go or what to do. Hell the guy was drunk for most of the battle, which is a fascinating detail in the whole thing. It'd be a perfect Drunk History episode.
- unimpressive 11y ago>My understanding wasn't that the men were stunned by the impressive explosion, but rather that Ledlie had so badly botched the whole thing that they literally had no idea what to expect or where to go or what to do. Both, really. They didn't know what they were meant to be doing and the massive explosion did not exactly promote their higher faculties in figuring it out.
- ldpg 11y agoTunneled bombs were used in a major way in WWI too. In January, 1917, General Sir Herbert Plumer, gave orders for 20 mines to be placed under German lines at Messines. Over the next five months more than 8,000 metres of tunnel were dug and 600 tons of explosive were placed in position. Simultaneous explosion of the mines took place at 3.10 on 7th June. The blast killed an estimated 10,000 soldiers and was so loud it was heard in London. http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWtunnelling.htm http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWtunnelling.htm The craters are still there and form ponds in the fields where the battle took place.
- sandworm101 11y agoHellburners are is no way equivalent to any nuclear weapon. The renaissance had no such equivalents. The description of any ancient weapon in terms of weapons of mass destruction is disingenuous. It lessens the term and suggests that such weapons are nothing new in history. That leads to arguments for their regulation and use in historical terms: Elizabeth used hellburners then, so we should be able to use tactical nukes today.
- crpatino 11y agoAre you implying that the ancients never had access to weapons capable of killing thousands/millions of people when unleashed? What about chemical/biological weapons? I faintly recall some stories of the Bible where rats were used as weapons (not a plague from the Lord, but actual humans collecting lots of rats and releasing them near the enemy city), and the ancient Jews were not particularly advanced compared with other civilizations of the time.
- Florin_Andrei 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech
- sandworm101 11y agohttp://rhetorica.net/bias.htm http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm
- justizin 11y agoAs in another thread, it seems like the word "Tactical" is key here. The new weapon that was recently released to the US is particularly objectionable to many because it allows its' yield to be 'dialed down'. There are also air-to-air nuclear weapons designed for planes to shoot at each other, which might not have a yield much larger than a Hellburner. I share your concern about an interpretation of history that lends arguments to dangerous attitudes in present-day politics, just having recently read a great deal about nuclear yields, the humongous detonations we imagine are not the only type possible, they're just the only type of weapons which have ever been deployed, with many weapons simply not even having been ever tested.
- 100k 11y agoI'd never heard of hellburner ships, but I _have_ read C.J. Cherryh's novel Hellburner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_to_the_Belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_to_the_Belt). I wonder if that's where she got the name.
- Animats 11y agoSomething similar was tried during WWII. See [1]. This was an explosive ship used to attack an important drydock. The explosive ship part worked fine. But there was a complicated commando raid on other nearby objectives attached to the operation, which didn't go as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid