3 ms·

> Firearms can't be overwhelming combat weapons until U.S. civil war Right, Napoleonic wars were fought with bows and spears :/

by alexkay 17y ago

eugenejen 17y ago
well, a small group of rifle men with winchester rifles can overwhelm a group of swordsmen or archers of 10 times of size. But I don't think the same group of rifle men with muskets would have overwhelming advantage. At the other hand, Napolenic wars are fought between groups of similar size. Of course Napoleon was very good at defeating enemies with larger army. By concentrating on weak point of enemy one at the moment, Napoleon exerted overwhelming power to defeat his enemy piece by piece. I did not express my idea well. I don't think the answer to question "why Damascus sword discontinued at 18th" is "widespread and improvement of European gunsmith". Guns in 18th century Europe were still like the replacement of bows and arrows. Most of guns in 18th century are muskets. They are lighter than crossbows and can penetrate armors. Muskets suffered from wet weather and bad black powders. Musket lacks of precision and relies on rotation firing squads in platoon to provide constant firepower. Most battles were still decided by outcome of close combat. And in close combat, a sword like Damascus sword really overwhelmed its opponents.
- HalcyonMuse 17y ago
  This strikes me as somewhat misinformed. Try reading Michael Neiburg's "Warfare in World History." It's a great ~100 page summary of the history of warfare. Firearms are a very important component. Not all battles were decided by close combat... not by a long shot. Musketmen were an integral part of combat, though pikemen and cavalry were as well. Then again, artillery, too, played a big role in European warfare. On the other hand, as Kenneth Chase's "Firearms: A Global History to 1700" will point out, the use of firearms in a given region depended on a variety of factors, ranging from terrain to materials available, but mostly depending on what style of warfare was prevalent (nomadic vs. agrarianate) and what style a given state's neighbors chose. An excellent counterpoint to the melee-centric theory of battle prior to the 1850s is the "wagon laager," used by several nations, but most effectively used by the Ottomans. Chase begins describing the Ottoman wagon laager on p86. It relied on firearms (muskets and cannons, not rifles) and was used to great effect as early as the 1400s. The janissary infantry relied on firearms so much that they were not equipped with pikes; the Ottoman army used a combination of this wagon laager and cavalry to fight their battles... melee infantry simply weren't used. In summary, firearms were overwhelming combat weapons well before the introduction of breach-loading rifles.

> Firearms can't be overwhelming combat weapons until U.S. civil war Right, Napoleonic wars were fought with bows and spears :/

by alexkay 17y ago

> Firearms can't be overwhelming combat weapons until U.S. civil war Right, Napoleonic wars were fought with bows and spears :/

eugenejen 17y ago

well, a small group of rifle men with winchester rifles can overwhelm a group of swordsmen or archers of 10 times of size. But I don't think the same group of rifle men with muskets would have overwhelming advantage. At the other hand, Napolenic wars are fought between groups of similar size. Of course Napoleon was very good at defeating enemies with larger army. By concentrating on weak point of enemy one at the moment, Napoleon exerted overwhelming power to defeat his enemy piece by piece. I did not express my idea well. I don't think the answer to question "why Damascus sword discontinued at 18th" is "widespread and improvement of European gunsmith". Guns in 18th century Europe were still like the replacement of bows and arrows. Most of guns in 18th century are muskets. They are lighter than crossbows and can penetrate armors. Muskets suffered from wet weather and bad black powders. Musket lacks of precision and relies on rotation firing squads in platoon to provide constant firepower. Most battles were still decided by outcome of close combat. And in close combat, a sword like Damascus sword really overwhelmed its opponents.

HalcyonMuse 17y ago
This strikes me as somewhat misinformed. Try reading Michael Neiburg's "Warfare in World History." It's a great ~100 page summary of the history of warfare. Firearms are a very important component. Not all battles were decided by close combat... not by a long shot. Musketmen were an integral part of combat, though pikemen and cavalry were as well. Then again, artillery, too, played a big role in European warfare. On the other hand, as Kenneth Chase's "Firearms: A Global History to 1700" will point out, the use of firearms in a given region depended on a variety of factors, ranging from terrain to materials available, but mostly depending on what style of warfare was prevalent (nomadic vs. agrarianate) and what style a given state's neighbors chose. An excellent counterpoint to the melee-centric theory of battle prior to the 1850s is the "wagon laager," used by several nations, but most effectively used by the Ottomans. Chase begins describing the Ottoman wagon laager on p86. It relied on firearms (muskets and cannons, not rifles) and was used to great effect as early as the 1400s. The janissary infantry relied on firearms so much that they were not equipped with pikes; the Ottoman army used a combination of this wagon laager and cavalry to fight their battles... melee infantry simply weren't used. In summary, firearms were overwhelming combat weapons well before the introduction of breach-loading rifles.