> I find it hard to imagine that there was no use to the miltitary. There is a long history of all kind of military ballooning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H

> I find it hard to imagine that there was no use to the miltitary. There is a long history of all kind of military ballooning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_military_ballooning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_military_ballooning > An attacking army was able to setup hundreds of balloons on the deck of the boat, and then float over the city walls and drop flaming "bombs" from a height they leaves them untouchable. If you can park a boat near a city you can destroy it/harass it much easier with just cannons. It is not enough to show that a thing can achieve an effect, but you also have to show that no other thing can achieve a comparable or better effect. > they could breach the walls of the city by floating over it and landing somewhere inside. They can, but that sounds like a recipe to be cut off from your friends and be easy prey to the enemy. And that's if they are lucky and do not drift off target. Not sure if that is a good idea. > attacker could setup rows of tethered balloons I think you are under estimating the amount of support required per balloon. The French Aerostatic Corps during the battle of the Fleurus had one balloon, and they needed 20 man to carry it to position. > And if one built fins, and the winds were low enough, one could actually create direction by flapping Balloons are huge, and they act kind of like a sail. Even in dead calm air, which itself is very rare, you would not get anywhere by human powered flapping because you would need to overpower all the air resistance. You are worse even in the slightest breeze.